In an interview with Parade Magazine, Perry said he has no reason to think otherwise that the president was born in the United States. But pushed further for a more definitive answer, Perry said he couldn’t be sure that Obama’s long-form birth certificate, which was released earlier this year, was real.

Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?
I have no reason to think otherwise.

That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”—
Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.

But you’ve seen his.
I don’t know. Have I?

You don’t believe what’s been released?
I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.

And?
That came up.

And he said?
He doesn’t think it’s real.

And you said?
I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.

And then why Perry has such a man crush for Trump:

Do you think Donald Trump going [sic] to support your candidacy?
You’ll have to ask him, but I’d certainly like to have the Donald’s support. He is a job-creating machine, and that’s what I’m all about.

Donald Trump got his start by inheriting a real estate empire, then managed to bankrupt an Atlantic City casino back when owning one was a license to print money. That’s not even dealing with the birther nonsense. Any Republican should ne happy to have him in his or her corner.

Majority Will: I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.

Although I agree with Mr Perry on very little, on this he is correct-a sitting President simply CANNOT be ineligiible. Why not? Because he has been found eligible by Congress and therefore IS eligible (just as the Cardinals runner last night was called safe at first by the umpire and therefore WAS safe, regardless of what the replays showed). To all the birthers-please read the Constitution, especially the 12th and 20th Amendment. It is crystal clear that a sitting President is eligible for the office he sits in-period, end of story.

Now, candidates for office, like Mr Perry, are in a totally different situation. Congress has not found them eligible, so they certainly can be ineligible. I have seen nothing that suggests to me that Mr Perry is eligible. Where he was born is suspiciously close to Mexico, and his command of the English language is weak, to say the least.

To find the earlier Taitz involved in crazy Russian propaganda, stop the video at 1.16. The name of the actress playing the romantic interest Basia, is actually misspelled as if were pronounced Taa-eets, with an “ee” instead of a consonantal “y”. The correct pronunciation is like the English word “tights”. As I said before, though the family name is almost exclusively Jewish, the word is Slavic, meaning something or someone hidden or secret, derived from the adjective tayny, secret, hidden. A hidden water source or a below surface connection between two streams is a tayts. Many Jews ended up being called Taitz in Russia, as a bastardization of the word “Deutsch”.

I have been unable to find anything else on this actress LM Tayts (except that her first name may have been Lina and she may have been a solo singer in a Jewish Volksuniversitaet theatre group in the twenties), and have no idea whether she is somehow related to Orly’s husband – or to the famous author of children’s stories, Yakov. The Russian Wikipedia article on the film also misspells the name of the actress. In view of the fact that Taitz’ husband is from Latvia (and Orly once claimed part of his family was killed by Baltic nazis), it is interesting that the lead actor in the film B. Zuskin (who was executed by Stalin in 1952) was a Jew expelled from the Baltics by antisemites after the first world war.

As for the film, you will not need to understand Yiddish or German to get impressed by the opening song. Sources from Odessa say that song sent shivers through entire audiences when it was first shown. But then, Dunayevsky was a great composer – he also composed the classical tango song “serdse”. The rest of this “musical” is pure-blooded Stalinist propaganda, which today is almost charming because of its childishness.

CaptainAmerica: In an interview with Parade Magazine, Perry said he has no reason to think otherwise that the president was born in the United States. But pushed further for a more definitive answer, Perry said he couldn’t be sure that Obama’s long-form birth certificate, which was released earlier this year, was real.

I really don’t get it. If he were flirting with birthers, he wouldn’t have said Obama was born in the USA (because this will immediately kill off any birfer sympathy).
But what good does it do for him to basically say “I don’t know if Hawaii issued authentic documents”?
The number of birthers who would blindly vote for anyone who takes even one step in their direction is probably too low to warrant any trouble (fringe among the fringe).
Or maybe he thinks the issue might become huge again and doesn’t want to make a definitive statement in either direction, lest someone later calls him out as “last year, you said you had no doubts about it”? Puzzling…

Bob, I note that Alex Jones, a sort of dime store Rush Limbaugh, is blasting the Texas governor for “lying” about the Gardasil flap, asserting that the inoculation of young teen girls was the law when it wasn’t. But in fact, wouldn’t it have been the law had not negative reaction of the public and the Legislature negated the guv’s executive order?
Reaching a hand out to people like this risks having it bitten off.

The Magic M: I really don’t get it. If he were flirting with birthers, he wouldn’t have said Obama was born in the USA (because this will immediately kill off any birfer sympathy).
But what good does it do for him to basically say “I don’t know if Hawaii issued authentic documents”?
The number of birthers who would blindly vote for anyone who takes even one step in their direction is probably too low to warrant any trouble (fringe among the fringe).
Or maybe he thinks the issue might become huge again and doesn’t want to make a definitive statement in either direction, lest someone later calls him out as “last year, you said you had no doubts about it”? Puzzling…

he just had his turn at brunch with captain combover. they probably discussed campaign contributions …

Paul Pieniezny:
I was waiting for an open “mike” to tell Misha, I finally found the Stalinist film. Seekers of Happiness.

Thanks for sharing an interesting piece of film history. I had never heard of “Seekers of Happiness” nor of Birobidzhan–it was fascinating to learn about this Soviet “Zion” and the way it was portrayed for propaganda purposes.

Monday, October 24, 2011
Ros-Lehtinen Invites Public to Submit Questions for Secretary Clinton

(WASHINGTON) – U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, released the following statement today inviting members of the public to submit questions for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will testify before the Committee at a hearing this Thursday, October 27, titled “Afghanistan and Pakistan: Transition and the Way Forward”:

“A stable and secure Afghanistan governed by legitimate democratic leaders that will deny Islamist militants a safe-haven from which to operate, and the future of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, both weigh heavily on U.S. national security interests.
“I am pleased that Secretary Clinton has agreed to come before our Committee on Thursday to discuss these critical matters, as well as other topics of immediate relevance. I would like to encourage members of the public to visit our Committee website and utilize our ‘You Ask a Question’ feature,, so that they can suggest questions for our Members to ask Secretary Clinton. We want to know what’s on your mind, and what’s important to you.”

NOTE: For all Full Committee hearings, members of the public are invited to submit questions for the witness(es) through the Committee’s “You Ask a Question” online feature. The Committee will review the questions, and some questions may be asked by Members on behalf of the submitter. To submit a question, please visit: http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearings_question.asp

Sorry, but there is no relevance, immediate nor otherwise to the Birther nonsense. Nor is it relevent to the Sec of State’s role. If you waste time submitting Birther questions, they will be appropriately ignored, with all other irrelevant crank inquiries that they routinely get. FAIL again.

ImaObot: “A stable and secure Afghanistan governed by legitimate democratic leaders that will deny Islamist militants a safe-haven from which to operate, and the future of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, both weigh heavily on U.S. national security interests.
“I am pleased that Secretary Clinton has agreed to come before our Committee on Thursday to discuss these critical matters, as well as other topics of immediate relevance. I would like to encourage members of the public to visit our Committee website and utilize our ‘You Ask a Question’ feature,, so that they can suggest questions for our Members to ask Secretary Clinton. We want to know what’s on your mind, and what’s important to you.”

If she does not keep watch here to see what we think of her most recent diatribes, you can be sure her bot is here. Every night she goes like this: “658 articles about Marco Rubio, 48 articles about Rick Perry, 10 articles about Jim Perry and only 2 about Obama’s SSN. Someone is scrubbing the internet again!”

That may be what the government is banking on. I can certainly umderstand your feelings. Besides just the hassle of going through the process, there is no guarantee that it will result in any definitve information. And there is a certain segment of the population who wouldn’t accept anything that might come of it, especially if it helped the President. And than there is the newspaper headlines – “Local Man Sues to See Obama’s Mother’s Passport”.

Like the Executive Order that seal all his records, this is certain to go down in birther lore as an attempt to hide his past. Now when a government agency says the record doesn’t exist, birthers will just assume it is a lie.

Hmmmm. Trump goes birther, making headlines right before the end of his TV show. Then he practically vanishes into thin air. Months later, here we are, he’s babbling again, and lo! I read an article yesterday that the new season of the Apprentice is wrapping up filming…

Tarrant:
Hmmmm. Trump goes birther, making headlines right before the end of his TV show. Then he practically vanishes into thin air. Months later, here we are, he’s babbling again, and lo! I read an article yesterday that the new season of the Apprentice is wrapping up filming…

Captain Combover didn’t like getting b!tch slapped by Seth Meyers and the President at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

This orange stained carnival barker is a crap weasel who holds a grudge.

Turns out the “debunker” now agrees with Donofrio—Justia DID tamper with the decisions.

Can’t wait to hear how you’ll cover this Doc, along with all the silly comments by the usual posters who’ll completely avoid the issue–I don’t blame your friends though, Dr. C, it is a rather complicated situation that would actually take more than a few minutes to read and understand…

Orly is angry and frustrated. She is having trouble differentiating between supporters and non-supporters who want to antagonize her.

If she wants to tell people I’m delusional and a liar, then its okay with me. I’m secure enough about who I am to deal with it on a rational level.

Orly should contact the HFAC Chair to ask a question of Hillary. Honestly, I think this will be faster than filing an Emergency FOIA request with the State Department.

The HFAC Chair, The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lethinen, is a big fan of Israel, GLTB activists, anyone connected to Latino ancestry or culture and Sen. Maro Rubio. Ros-Lethinen is not a fan of Cuban dictators or Hillary Clinton.

I think a good question about Maro Rubio’s eligibility could lead to a frank and open discussion on who is a natural born citizen and who is not.

ImaObot: I think a good question about Maro Rubio’s eligibility could lead to a frank and open discussion on who is a natural born citizen and who is not.

To quote Dr C, I don’t have a dog in your fight, but if you think any US politician is ever going to utter words relegating all the binationals (cuban-americans, jewish-americans, green-americans, mexican-amercans, italian americans,irish-americans, etc.) born on US soil from a non-citizen parent to what might be construed as “second class citizen” status, you are indeed delusional.

ImaObot: I think a good question about Maro Rubio’s eligibility could lead to a frank and open discussion on who is a natural born citizen and who is not.

You see the problem is birthers don’t want a frank and open discussion on who is a natural born citizen and who is not. They just want people to sit and listen, and accept blindly, their junk legal arguments. An actual “frank and open discussion” would actually be rather short. It would consist of saying, there is nothing in our legal history to lead to the conclusion that any person born on US soil, not to members of a foreign diplomatic corp, is anything but a natural born citizen. There is not a single serious scholar of Constitutional Law that takes a different position. Now, on the other hand, you could have a very interesting discussion about the natural born citizenship of a person, whose claim stems for a statute, such as those born abroad to citizen parents. In fact there have been many journal articles, and even a symposium on the topic.

Notice now that Mario Apuzzo is claiming that Justia’s transcript of the Minor v. Happersett case has been altered. Just a guess, but sounds like he may be growing weary of hearing that the 1873 case established no precedent as to whether anyone born here of at least one non-citizen parent is not a natural born citizen, and that he will henceforth assert that the actual language of the decision upholds his theory that two citizen parents are required for natural born citizenship.
I say hold his feet to the fire; challenge him to show exactly where the on-line language in Justia departs from hard-copy law books printed long ago. Ask him to tell us which law library he found the book he’s quoting from, and the publisher and year of that law book’s printing.

Also, I saw one news report that identified Charles Kerchner as a lawyer. Is he? First I’ve heard that.

Sallyven: What? No Dr. C wit and sarcasm discussing this one:http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2011/10/justia-did-not-expunge-references-to.htmlTurns out the “debunker” now agrees with Donofrio—Justia DID tamper with the decisions.Can’t wait to hear how you’ll cover this Doc, along with all the silly comments by the usual posters who’ll completely avoid the issue–I don’t blame your friends though, Dr. C, it is a rather complicated situation that would actually take more than a few minutes to read and understand…

Ummm….and why would anyone even care? It’s a private website. One private website among many that reproduce Supreme Court cases. And it’s not even the choice of anyone doing serious legal research (those would be Lexis or Westlaw). And even among the free ones, you have Cornell, and God only knows how many others. Not to mention, the actual published and bound reporters.

So why again, would anyone even care what modifications Justia does to how they present a case, that no court has ever interpreted as provide a definition for natural born citizenship before Donofrio pulled out of the darkest corners of his bowels his farcical two parent rule?

So why again, would anyone even care what modifications Justia does to how they present a case, that no court has ever interpreted as provide a definition for natural born citizenship before Donofrio pulled out of the darkest corners of his bowels his farcical two parent rule?

And then there is Leo’s claim that Justia has committed a “criminal offense.” That’s good to know, because now we can file criminal complaints against all of the birthers who distort SCOTUS decisions!

JoZeppy, the only relevance would be if — in the birthers’ dream world — the modifications Justia allegedly made completely changed the meaning of language about natural born citizenship — and it turned out that the court did rule that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents. Of course you’re right that the hard volumes published decades or even a century before anyone ever heard the term “birther” would still be definitive. I’m just curious to see what specific assertions Apuzzo makes concerning any alleged changes. ( I don’t believe for a millisecond that he’s right.)
Moth to a flame, I guess

Boy, you are really desperate to twist a non-issue into some imaginary conspiracy, aren’t you?

So, your whole Donofrio & Apuzzo inspired basis here is that somehow Supreme Court records of these cases have been “scrubbed”, because there was a small technical glitch on one private website, with how the code addressed displaying certain footnote references?

Seriously??? That is your big “evidence” and argument? *yawn*. You do realize that we’re talking about cases that were decided well over a century ago and which are also referenced in many official legal books as well as other websites, don’t you?

Face it, this comes down to those Birther lawyer clowns being tired of people pointing out what the law ACTUALLY says to them and that when they cite cases, they are caught leaving key text out of their citations deliberately, because it debunks them.

Anytime someone goes down the “scrubbing” rabbit-hole to believe some “vast conspiracy” exists that could possibly access & change all records…well, you know that they have not only thrown away all credibility, but are likely very mentally ill.

Seriously.

Sallyven: What? No Dr. C wit and sarcasm discussing this one:http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2011/10/justia-did-not-expunge-references-to.htmlTurns out the “debunker” now agrees with Donofrio—Justia DID tamper with the decisions.Can’t wait to hear how you’ll cover this Doc, along with all the silly comments by the usual posters who’ll completely avoid the issue–I don’t blame your friends though, Dr. C, it is a rather complicated situation that would actually take more than a few minutes to read and understand…

Turns out the “debunker” now agrees with Donofrio—Justia DID tamper with the decisions.

Can’t wait to hear how you’ll cover this Doc, along with all the silly comments by the usual posters who’ll completely avoid the issue–I don’t blame your friends though, Dr. C, it is a rather complicated situation that would actually take more than a few minutes to read and understand…

Justia is not used by most lawyers. They use Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis.
Minor v Happersett was attempted as “binding precedent” in two Obama eligibility appeals that reached the US Supreme Court. It was used in the Petitions for Writs of Certiorari in Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro, et. al.
The Supreme Court did not find Minor v Happersett to be persuasive and both appeals were summarily denied. They did not even make the Justivces’ conference “discuss list,” meaning that not even ONE of the nine justices found it compelling enough to seek further discussion..
The justia.com edit is irrelevant.

Sallyven: Turns out the “debunker” now agrees with Donofrio—Justia DID tamper with the decisions.

Turns out that Justia did NOT “tamper” with the decisions beyond the innocent updating of the case references to modern usage.

As your article points out, they had a programming error in this process which has since been corrected. To the extent that anyone looking up any of the affected cases were misled by the error while it was in place, I suppose they deserve a bit of slack. However, the error was quickly corrected, and further quality control measures put in place to help prevent a future re-occurrence.

There is no spin needed. It was a simple programming mistake. If I had a penny for every programming mistake I’ve ever made, I’d own the copper mine.

Lupin:
I meant to say GREEK-americans, not GREEN-americans, although those born on US soil of Skrull parents should certainly be eligible.

Clark Kent is not, however.

Once upon a time I would have disagreed with you about the Skrulls. I would have said that extraterrestrial beings could not be considered ‘natural persons’ under the law. But SCOTUS has ruled that non-beings, let alone extraterrestrial beings, can be considered ‘natural persons’ so I’ll have to submit to that.

No, Keith, read the link again. The debunker now AGREES with Donofrio–there was tampering AFTER the links were modernized. In other words, the modernization “worked” as Donofrio’s links do show. The problem is that there were additional revisions afterwards that cannot be explained by the process of the updating.

“Sally”: if that is your name and you are female (or even if you are male) you should tread very carefully around the Minor case, which ruled that women had no right to vote. A sensible person of any gender would consider the fact that women DO in fact have the vote as a good indication that the Minor-league case is NOT a valid precedent, but was in fact a horse-excremental decision that has since been decisively overturned. Even pretending that modern-day folks should pay it any heed is equivalent to saying that a chemist today should give credence to phlogiston theory or that a geneticist should defer to Lysenko.

Sallyven: No, Keith, read the link again. The debunker now AGREES with Donofrio–there was tampering AFTER the links were modernized. In other words, the modernization “worked” as Donofrio’s links do show. The problem is that there were additional revisions afterwards that cannot be explained by the process of the updating.

And you didn’t answer the whole point of ‘so what’?

This is but one of many legal references, and frankly one I have never used(I have used Cornell).

Explain how to anyone other than a conspiracy theorist how this possibly relevant?

Joey: The Supreme Court did not find Minor v Happersett to be persuasive and both appeals were summarily denied.

LOL – well why in the world would anyone elevate a case to SCOTUS, we have Joey the mind reader of SCOTUS at our service!

It was my understanding that the cases were never heard on ANY merits whatsoever….they weren’t heard due to lack of standing by the Plaintiff. Several of the cases were in fact referred for conference, but never made it out of conference due to the standing issue.

My dear Joey, saying something over and over or lying to yourself just won’t make it true…..pity.

If ‘most’ lawyers use Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw why does Justia.com even exist? So silly to have a huge database of decisions online when no one even uses them. How about if they are there for the general public to use….that makes sense doesn’t it? So, are you saying that since lawyers have access to other legal libraries the one available for free to the public shouldn’t or needn’t be correct?

While I’m reserving judgement on this whole Justia.com issue, I do see some issues that make me question the legitimacy of this so called ‘innocent mistake’. Justia says there were more cases other than Minor that were affected, but have yet to disclose just exactly what other cases were affected by this ‘innocent scripting mistake’. Why would they block historical pages with robot.txt on all pages? It seems counter productive and almost screams of impropriety when you block something that should be transparent and was transparent prior to the ‘innocent mistake’.

It would seem the more information that becomes available, the more it doesn’t look good for Justia…but that’s just my opinion and you all know how bat shIt crazy I am. However, I don’t wear a tin-foil hat and didn’t even realize there was such a thing until you all brought it up….makes me think you are the one wearing them and thought everyone else did too!

sfjeff: Explain how to anyone other than a conspiracy theorist how this possibly relevant?

Denial much? Or just gullible and naive beyond belief where your man Obama is concerned?

Honestly, I think Obama could go out and commit heinous acts of violence and you would all cover and make excuses for him ….you would absolutely spin it to be the most wonderful thing he has done to date.

Seriously, Leo the moron can’t seem fathom that none of the cases that cite Minor cite Minor to support the notion that natural born citizens need citizen parents because Minor says no such thing. No legal authority in history, other than idiot birthers, have ever claimed Minor said any such thing. Is he actually claiming that references to Minor were scrubbed from cases that have nothing to do with natural born citizenship and in no way suggest Minor made any statements on such issue? Does Donofrio still think black helicopters are chasing him? Does anyone think Donofrio or Appuzo could beat a traffic ticket?

Sally HIll: Honestly, I think Obama could go out and commit heinous acts of violence and you would all cover and make excuses for him ….you would absolutely spin it to be the most wonderful thing he has done to date.

Sally HIll: Denial much? Or just gullible and naive beyond belief where your man Obama is concerned?Honestly, I think Obama could go out and commit heinous acts of violence and you would all cover and make excuses for him ….you would absolutely spin it to be the most wonderful thing he has done to date.

I am so gullible that I am willing to believe the multiple official statements of the State of Hawaii.
I am so gullible that I am willing to believe Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Conner
I am so gullible that I assume that Chief Justice Roberts would not knowingly swear in a President that he considered ineligible.

Yep, guilty as charged.

However, not so gullible as to believe the pile of steaming innuendo, speculation and lies that Birthers feel a need to leave laying around in forums.

And I notice you didn’t answer the question. What nefarious purpose do you believe was accomplished by the imagined ‘scrubbing’ of Justia, when the information is and was available on multiple websites and every library in the United States?

Honestly, I think Obama could go out and commit heinous acts of violence and you would all cover and make excuses for him ….you would absolutely spin it to be the most wonderful thing he has done to date.

That’s really, really stupid even for you. Are you pretending to be an expert in legal research now?

Or are you shuffling goalposts and squawking again about things for which you have absolutely no actual knowledge?

/rhetorical question

Before accusing others of gullibility, check a mirror if you have the stomach for it.

Ballantine: Is he actually claiming that references to Minor were scrubbed from cases that have nothing to do with natural born citizenship

In his one example (Luria v. United States), it actually supports President Obama by saying there are only two types of citizen native born and naturalized. And naturalized have the same rights as the native born except they cannot be President.

How funny….the ruling states that a woman has no right as guaranteed by the Constitution to vote….has nothing to do with whether she has the right to vote…only that the right is not granted by the Constitution. They further held that the Constitution didn’t grant voting rights to men either. Minor merely says:
1. Minor is a US citizen, therefore, US law applies
2. The Constitution does not give women OR men the right to vote.

I find no threat as a woman by the ruling in Minor, but maybe you should Scientist. LOL If this is the way you read and interpret case law, you should be very afraid of all those rulings out there that are completely and totally against men, and you know very well which ones I’m talking about, don’t you!!!!! :))))

Sally HIll: I find no threat as a woman by the ruling in Minor, but maybe you should Scientist

No, because Minor is antiquated and overturned, so it is not a threat to anyone now. it’s dead and buried and even the great Donofrio cannot revive a corpse. If you want to waste your time with necromancy, be my guest.

Minor is irrelevant to anything in 2011, including whether a particular person is or is not the President. If you want to know what actual courts made up of living, breathing judges who actually know what the law says today, read Ankeny.

sfjeff: And I notice you didn’t answer the question. What nefarious purpose do you believe was accomplished by the imagined scrubbing’ of Justia, when the information is and was available on multiple websites and every library in the United States?

How can I answer a question before you ask it? Perhaps your a bit confused…. I’m not Sallyven….I’m Sally Hill. Did you perhaps ask Sallyven a question – I only just arrived here. I was anxious to see what the good Dr. had to say about the Justia issue – I was disappointed that he was probably out still supporting Obama and his jobs bill. I do hope that is the case, someone needs to keep Obama on task!!!

So, let me see if I can help you with the question……I have no idea. I didn’t know I said there was anything nefarious going on with Justia and the ‘scrubbing’ as you put it. I said I am reserving judgement, waiting for more info…as in not being so gullible as to think there is nothing there and not so gullible as to think there is anything at all there. I’m just hanging out reading what is available and waiting until all the cards are on the table to pass judgement as to whether it was an ‘innocent’ mistake or an ‘intentional’ mistake.

I think it was a disservice to the general public that could have possibly benefited from some of the ‘errant’ information that was shuffled around for the last 3 years. I mean, we have no idea if anyone had any type of case going on regarding voting or citizenship that could have possibly benefited from correct citations. It’s doubtful, but who knows. I know that in the past I have done lots of legal research as a lay person on behalf of my disabled daughter, due to lack of funds to hire a lawyer. I’m not sure if they do anymore, but several years ago even the general public could get trial accounts at Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw and that’s how I searched because Justia wasn’t in existence at the time, I don’t believe. So I would clear the calendar and sit non-stop for 48 hours (trial period) in front of the computer searching and printing everything I could get my hands on that might help.

It’s amazing at how you can get a school to honor certain schoolroom requests when you go wagging in a bunch of case law opinions with findings highlighted in pink. 🙂 I was the only advocate for my daughter to make sure she got special education services. The principal actually told the teacher to set her at the back of the room and keep her quiet so as not to distract the rest of the class. Her disability? Severe dyslexia, with mild ADD, not ADHD, she was the opposite of hyper. So yeah, I’m a huge advocate of the general public being able to have access to CORRECT and RELEVANT case law. Lawyers are too expensive when you have to hire reading and math tutors because the public schools refuse to teach your child.

Scientist: I wonder what will happen to those laws guaranteeing access to such services under a Republlcan Congress and a Republican President.

You apparently are still under the assumption that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. They are ALL corrupt and the both play for the same side, which is against We The People.

But you go right on believing that the Dems are there for you, there to protect you and guide you to a new world of hope and change. I bet when you get there, you’ll see plenty of those so called Republicans dressed exactly the same as those so called Democrats.

Sallyven:
No, Keith, read the link again.The debunker now AGREES with Donofrio–there was tampering AFTER the links were modernized.In other words, the modernization “worked” as Donofrio’s links do show.The problem is that there were additional revisions afterwards that cannot be explained by the process of the updating.

That is incorrect. Perhaps you should read it again.

The ‘debunker’ provides the exact reason for the error. The only thing he cannot definitively answer is whether or not the problem affected cases other than the ones Donofrio et al are interested in.

Justia is claiming that the error affected many cases, not just Donofrio’s favorites, but only SCOTUS cases. The ‘debunker’ has no way to verify that claim.

If the decision was so wrong or out of the mainstream, it could and should have been appealed to the US Supreme Court. But, oddly, in this one case, the entire pack of birther “lawyers” who typically file a dozen or so appeals over whether the judge had mayo or mustard on his sandwich were notably unappealing. Interesting. I mean for several years now, we have heard the birther” lawyers” whine at every opportunity about how they can never get standing. And here a court grants them standing and what do they do with it? Nothing

The Ankeny court looked at all the Vattel nonsense and applied the Constitution, not Indiana law. And NO ONE APPEALED. Not Mario, not Leo, not Orly. They must have all been washing their hair.

By the way, it has been my experience that the cogency of arguments is inversely proportional to the number of smiley-face icons.

Sally HIll: You apparently are still under the assumption that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats

It’s a good thing you aren’t pitching in the World Series, because you throw a lot of gopher balls. When it comes to special education services, the Republican platform is to abolish the Department of Education and stop providing funding to states for education, including Special Ed services. Without that federal money, in the current budget climate, it is simply a fact that most states will cut those services back rather severely. The Democrats support maintaining that funding.

If you are the parent of a disabled child and are too lazy to find out where the parties stand on this issue then you are a fool. If you don’t care because your child no longer needs those services and don’t think other children should get what they did, then you are something worse.

Sally HIll: You apparently are still under the assumption that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Well, there is at least this one difference: the Republicans are now owned lock, stock, and barrel by Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers who have been actively pursuing an agenda of destroying the public education system in the USA for several decades.

Your struggles with obtaining good results for your daughter can be directly linked to the wide scale devastation brought about by the ideological posturing of these guys and their various stalking horses like the Paul family.

gorefan: In his one example (Luria v. United States), it actually supports President Obama by saying there are only two types of citizen native born and naturalized. And naturalized have the same rights as the native born except they cannot be President.

Yes, there are a half dozen cases that make clear a native born citizen is eligible to be President. The birthers never mention these:

“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)

“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)

“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(quoting Luria v. United States”).

“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting).

“The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more.” United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931).

“Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)

Sally HIll: You apparently are still under the assumption that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.They are ALL corrupt and the both play for the same side, which is against We The People.

As you probably know, Google has a program that translate birther-speak into plain English. I ran Mustang Sally’s rant and it came out, “Nobody pays any attention to my absurd obsessions, so everybody sucks!”

Justia’s explanation appears to be quite probable as expected. Never attribute something to malice when a simple mistake suffices. But the birthers see conspiracies everywhere and Leo is the master of paranoia here.
So it appears that Leo led the birthers on another wild goose chase… Will they never learn I wonder.

They are ALL corrupt and the both play for the same side, which is against We The People.

I guess you will soon be joining the true patriots of the Occupy Wall Street movement then?…. Or is the Tea party still sufficient, even though it is being manipulated by the same people who manipulate Congress?

Sally HIll: Why would they block historical pages with robot.txt on all pages?

Robots.txt doesn’t block anything. On the contrary, it actually provides savvy internet users with an interesting roadmap to the site. (It gives any user an easy reference list of all directories which have not been indexed by search engines)

A robots.txt file merely provides instructions to search engines as to which part of the site to index — but it is permissive, not mandatory. That means, a search engine does not have to obey the robots.txt file. (The major search engines do respect it, however — for a number of very good reasons).

The fact that anyone claims that robots.txt “blocks” access to anything just demonstrates their stupidity. In any case, the robots.txt file at justia.com has the following directives:

That is telling the search engine spider to stay out of their scripts directory, and the directory which contains statistical reports related to web site usage (such as number of hits, etc.). Any competent web site manager would make the content of those particular directories non-readable and/or password-protected in any case. Opening the scripts directories to search engines is a security risk, and the stats directories contain private, proprietary information.

Sally HIll: Justia says there were more cases other than Minor that were affected, but have yet to disclose just exactly what other cases were affected by this innocent scripting mistake’.

And again we have “prove your innocence”. How charming.
How about birthers prove that only Minor vs. Happersett was affected by the problem? After all, they are the ones claiming the case was selectively “scrubbed”.

Sally HIll: Why would they block historical pages with robot.txt on all pages?

Because one of the main problems of instant communication is that errors tend to “stick”. Why would anyone with something as important as a legal database want a search engine to return a version that was corrected because of an error?
If your site erroneously said “any contract can be voided within 14 days if one party demands it”, would you want people to find that during a web search simply because it is preserved “for historical purposes”?

The Magic M: How about birthers prove that only Minor vs. Happersett was affected by the problem? After all, they are the ones claiming the case was selectively “scrubbed”.

Since Leo’s “research” appears to only show how various links were changed, and then changed back, the only reason for his demonstration were to lay seeds of doubt about what Minor v. Happersett actually says. Though I have found nothing of his that states the actual content was changed, that is what he wants to birthers to believe. He is depending on the birthers’ bias to take a simple linking error and translate it into a scrubbing of the actual decision itself. Judging by the reaction by various birthers, it appears he was successful.

This is a good example of using, on its face, and actual fact (truth) but using it in a way to get the listener to accept an actual lie. He could state that he showed only actual facts but in reality, what appears to be his intent is to get the birthers to accept that Minor says something it does not actually say.

Yet another case of birthers seeing great importance in the notional possibility of what would have been to all realistic intents and purposes a motiveless crime. The biggest previous example of this was of course the notion that Obama’s mother/family would have engaged in a huge and logistically/practically difficult immigration fraud in order to secure a foreign born Obama a natural born citizenship when a naturalized citizenship could have been very simply and very obtained on return to USA with the baby, with zero advantages of one form of citizenship over the other for either the family or the baby (other than being eligible for President one day).

The value of such scrubbing to Obama’s candiacy in 2008, even if the scrubbing was confined to only this case (yet to be made clear one way or the other), is negligible at best. Realistically the value is zilch.

(a) no sane person interprets Minor vs Happersett the way birthers do and

(b) if the “true meaning” of NBC was somehow hidden by a big conspiracy for decades, no-one would’ve needed Justia to stumble upon Minor (which isn’t actually a blind spot in legal knowledge, I think it’s still among the 20 or 30 most famous SCOTUS rulings), and

(c) if birthers were correct and “everyone has always known that you need two citizen parents”, “scrubbing” one site of references to a certain SCOTUS decision wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

Birthers still can’t get their mind around the bizarro twisting of time, space and logical thinking that would be required to fit “everyone knew” and “everyone was misled” into the same argument. It can’t be both.

Plus, a court has stated that the Minor judges left the issue open. From Ankeny v. Governor:

The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

The value of such scrubbing to Obama’s candiacy in 2008, even if the scrubbing was confined to only this case (yet to be made clear one way or the other), is negligible at best. Realistically the value is zilch.

Precisely. It appears that the alleged “scrubbing” took place in June, 2008. Even Leo wasn’t talking about his “two-citizen parents” requirement then. So who was Justia hiding Minor v. Happersett from? I’m not even a lawyer, but I own several books which discuss Minor v. Happersett. It is not exactly an obscure case, and as pointed out by others the full text of the decision is available from numerous sources other than Justia.

What do you think he was alleging at that point in time then? You do realize he has never been concerned about where Obama was born or even thought he was born outside of Hawaii, right? He finally gave in and tried to get a copy of the long-form BC in order to prove that he WAS born in Hawaii as he suspected all along. Perhaps you should do some research before you post your ‘facts’ next time.

I’m appalled by those who feel it is okay to block anything from the public. And to the person who wanted to ‘school’ me on robot.txt….no need, I’ve got a degree in Web Design. The file is a directive to robot webcrawlers, not just search engine crawlers. In this particular case, they have added directions which now disallow historical or archived information of the page to be displayed. The page histories are no longer displayed when you place that URL into the Way Back Machine search. Such a move IS blocking the historical/archival pages of Justia.com. Why would they feel the need to do so after having touted transparency and only making this move AFTER these ‘unintended mistakes’ were uncovered? I’m not saying they are guilty – but it doesn’t look good for them.

Your argument for security is weak at best. If they felt their pages were vulnerable, why didn’t they feel they were vulnerable before the ‘mistake’ was found?

And to the person who now feels backed into a corner and wants to try and turn the tables by placing the burden back on Leo to find the ‘other’ changed pages, all I can say is WOW, are you really that desperate to try and dismiss this? If it’s all very innocent, why so defensive? Justia.com is the entity who said other pages were changed as well, not Leo – yet you want Leo to have to go in search of something he didn’t even know about – and NOW, after Justia has closed historical/archival searches of their pages. This is akin to Alec Rawls admonishing Leo for not publishing links to his screenshots of the changes in his first report, BECAUSE Justia shut down historical links, only Justia hadn’t shut down historical links at the time Leo published his first report on the matter.

Wouldn’t it just be faster and more conducive if Justia listed these ‘other’ opinions that had been changed. I mean, obviously they know which ones they are and that they exist – if they have nothing to hide from this ‘innocent mistake’ then make everything available to the public and make the whole site transparent again. My guess is – that isn’t going to happen.

And Judge Mental – rather than evaluating the effect or value of the ‘scrubbing’ as you put it, you should be outraged that it even happened, provided it was not by mistake as you seem to be slightly conceding to. Justia says there were more opinions affected by the scripting error – have you evaluated the overall effect of all those changes to others as zilch as well?

To Magic M’s question. I depends what kind of business I’m operating. If I’m being transparent and above board, I would definitely keep the revisions in full view. People make mistakes and I think we can all agree to that fact. I know I would rather be told up front that it was an error rather than essentially being lied to because the error, now corrected, had been hidden from view as though it had never happened. Appearances are everything and THAT is what sticks…not the error itself.

“And to the person who now feels backed into a corner and wants to try and turn the tables by placing the burden back on Leo to find the other’ changed pages, all I can say is WOW, are you really that desperate to try and dismiss this?”

If Donofrio makes the absurd claim that there was a conspiracy to obscure information, then the burden of proof is on him to prove it.

Sally HIll: Justia.com is the entity who said other pages were changed as well, not Leo

And again, birfer propaganda trying to obfuscate the issue. Leo claimed that some nefarious “scrubbing” was targeted at specific cases relating to NBC, especially Minor vs Happersett. To prove that claim, he needs to do more than just prove Minor was “scrubbed”.
This is like saying “Hurricane Katrina destroyed two kosher restaurants, this proves that it was a deliberate attack on Jewish Americans”.

Sally HIll: Wouldn’t it just be faster and more conducive if Justia listed these other’ opinions that had been changed. I mean, obviously they know which ones they are and that they exist – if they have nothing to hide from this innocent mistake’ then make everything available to the public and make the whole site transparent again.

Why would they “know which ones they are”? It was an automated process, do you think they have a perfect record of every point in time what was displayed how?

They published the regular expression that caused the problem, so you have no problem to check for yourself if it affected only Minor vs. Happersett.
Again you’re trying to shift the burden of proof – you make wild baseless accusations and then go “if I am wrong, prove me wrong if you’ve got nothing to hide”. Doesn’t work that way.

Also, please prove to me you never killed a kitten. Thankyouverymuch.

Sally HIll: I would rather be told up front that it was an error rather than essentially being lied to because the error, now corrected, had been hidden from view as though it had never happened

I don’t know for which legal database it makes sense to keep revisions of all errors temporarily created by erroneous presentation software. It’s an immense amount of clutter that no-one really needs.
Why would anyone need to know “on August 25th, from 17:12 to 18:56, we erroneously displayed ‘216(7/8)’ as ‘216(7)’ on pages 258, 260 and 304”?

“Sally Molehill: I would rather be told up front that it was an error rather than essentially being lied to because the error, now corrected, had been hidden from view as though it had never happened.”

“Hello, Is this Sally Molehill?

Your mountain is ready.”

And the righteous indignation and never ending whine of birther entitlement, no matter how absurd, irrelevant and inconsequential, continues . . .

Sally Hill wrote, “Appearances are everything and THAT is what sticks…not the error itself.”

That type of fallacious reasoning exits principally in fashion magazines, Republican debates, and the fetid imagination of birthers. Isn’t it a miraculous and wonderful thing that people like Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein were able to transcend the seductive appeal of appearance and get to the truth?

You said: “Again you’re trying to shift the burden of proof – you make wild baseless accusations and then go “if I am wrong, prove me wrong if you’ve got nothing to hide”. Doesn’t work that way.”

This is a very good point, and one that I began making when arguing with Vattle Birthers. If they want to promote a theory, then their theory needs to account for all the contrary evidence and information. Vattle Birthers need to prove why their version of Minor Happersett was ignored within 6 years by Judge Waite when he swore in Chester Arthur. Vatte Birthers need to explain why none of the textbooks mentioned the need for two citizen parents. Etc etc.

Plus, they should have done this prior to presenting their theory. Theories are not just guesses. Theories are “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.”

For example, the Vattle Birther theory should explain why we haven’t had any presidents with non-citizen parents. OOPS, we did. We had TWO. Now, the theory should explain how this happened. Vattle Birthers should explain the Ankeny decision, and why that court did not follow the Vatte Birther theory.

One reason why I am starting to stress this, is that I get the feeling from some of the Vattle Birthers I debate, is that as long as they are getting to play lawyer and have somebody talk to them, then they are happy. Like little kids who will seek any attention they can get, even negative attention.

I think it is time for them to grow up.

Plus, I did a exciting new Internet Article, that even has Carl Jung in it! And how many times have you seen something have that in their Internet Article about this issue. Carl Jung was a famous psychiatrist (who is dead now) who had a lot of art and pictures in his stuff! I even have his book with a the pictures and stuff for people who think I am not smart or something.

Sally Hill wrote, ” I would rather be told up front that it was an error rather than essentially being lied to because the error, now corrected, had been hidden from view as though it had never happened.”

With that kind of reasoning, the Founding Father’s are liars because they didn’t include all earlier drafts of the Constitution when they printed the final version.

Head Researcher: Vattle Birthers need to prove why their version of Minor Happersett was ignored within 6 years by Judge Waite when he swore in Chester Arthur.

Well, the birthers claim that Arthur “hid” his father’s citizenship. But of course he didn’t-he was never asked, nor did he ever state anything on the topic. Hinman, the attorney that the Democrats hired to investigate Arthur spent a lot of time looking into allegations that Arthur was born in Canada. he spent, as far as anyone can tell a total of 0 minutes looking into whether Arthur’s father had naturalized, which records were publically available in Vermont.

And of course all 9 members of the 2009 Supreme Court attended Obama’s inauguration and the Chief Justice swore him in (twce), and they unquestionably knew about his father’s citizenship. The birther’s have the following b.s. excuses;

1. The inauguration is only ceremonial. True, which means that the attendance of the justices is voluntary. We are to believe they voluntarilly attended the swearing in of someone they knew to be ineligible. Sure… By the way, I happen to own a bridge in Brooklyn that I am willing to sell at a bargain price.

2. They were afraid that if they blocked Obama from beiing inaugurated those nasty black people would riot. Sure.. except that nowhere was there a threat to that effect from any source whatsoever. Besides, if the Supreme gave in to real or imagined threats to riot over one or another decision of theirs, they might as well close up shop right now.

The bottom line is that no Supreme Court justice has ever said that a President requires citizen parents (1 or 2) and at least one, Sandra Day O’Connor, has said the opposite.

misha: There may be a difference between the two, but the distinction escapes me

Well, to start with, fashion magazines are more sophisticated in their discussion of foreign affairs, e.g., “Seven Ways to Seduce a Frenchman!” I’m sure that Rick Perry couldn’t come up with more than three, and even though Herman Cain came up with 9/9/9, in his plan only the middle class get screwed.

Sally HIll: What do you think he was alleging at that point in time then?You do realize he has never been concerned about where Obama was born or even thought he was born outside of Hawaii, right?He finally gave in and tried to get a copy of the long-form BC in order to prove that he WAS born in Hawaii as he suspected all along.Perhaps you should do some research before you post your facts’ next time.

As Scientist has already pointed out, you are the one who is factually impaired.

Donofrio v. Wells was filed on October 27, 2008. What Leo was doing in June is unknown to me, but there is no evidence that he was touting the supposed “two-citizen parent” requirement at that time. In fact, in his SCOTUS petition Leo says that his concerns began “in early October 2008.” As he is (or was) a licensed attorney, I assume that Leo had access to legal research resources other than Justia.

In fact, I’m still not sure what Leo’s gripe is. Is he complaining that he didn’t know about
Minor v. Happersett because Justia misled him? If that is the case, he is even more incompetent than we knew.

I agree with your assessment and YES, it is well past time for them to grow up. It is that very immature posture of theirs that causes others to quickly tire of them and lose all sympathy for their endless zombie nonsense.

Enjoyed the article, imagery & easter egg as always. H/T for “The Walking Dead” reference… one of the best shows on TV, IMHO.

My favorite line from your article: “They just keep banging their heads into those brick walls long past the point where the gray matter looks like mashed potatoes.”

Wow, that is so true on so many levels. Kudos.

Head Researcher: One reason why I am starting to stress this, is that I get the feeling from some of the Vattle Birthers I debate, is that as long as they are getting to play lawyer and have somebody talk to them, then they are happy. Like little kids who will seek any attention they can get, even negative attention.
I think it is time for them to grow up.
Plus, I did a exciting new Internet Article, that even has Carl Jung in it! And how many times have you seen something have that in their Internet Article about this issue. Carl Jung was a famous psychiatrist (who is dead now) who had a lot of art and pictures in his stuff! I even have his book with a the pictures and stuff for people who think I am not smart or something.http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/night-of-the-living-brain-dead-zombies-vattel-birthers/
The Head Researcher

“Perry told the news program that he has no doubt that President Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen and explained that he was only kidding when he made remarks recently suggesting he was not completely convinced that Obama was born in the United States.”

Perry’s despicable bumbling and statements on these issues only serve to highlight the problem of how lacking in integrity much of the GOP has become. It is hard to know what any of these people really believe and there seems to be a disturbing pattern, where either one or both of the following is happening:

1. They have very little regard for truth or being honorable and have no problem spreading dog-whistle slurs or made up smears against their opponents. End justifies the means to these folks and the only thing that bothers them is being held to account or being fact-checked on their statements. They only tepidly start to walk back their lies if they sense it is hurting them, which is in itself, a selfish and self-serving motive for apology and not in the least sincere nor honorable.

2. They actually *believe* or at least *support* the horrible causes, lies and bigotry they spread. They only appear to publically walk back from these statements, because they still retain just enough self-awareness to realize that the larger public doesn’t support them on this issue. Again, this is nothing but an insincere and self-serving reason, as they most assuredly would have no problem following through and continuing those statements (and some of their implied ramifications) if they thought they could publically get away with it. They will probably continue to spout, support and work to implement such stuff (at least pander to) whenever they feel they are safely within the confines of receptive audiences.

Both scenarios are reprehensible and indicate someone who has no business being a leader of any sort.

Well Sven, at least you can take comfort in your delusions by pining your hopes in Sheriff Joe Arpaio as he panders to both Mad Orly and the AZ Tea Party Birthers in claiming that his Cold Case Posse is hard at work investigating the birther claims and that they will deliver a “report” as soon as they can, promising “big shocks”…

It truly is silly season out there in GOP land. ODS seems to have caused collective brain damage. Sheriff Joe is really setting himself up for PUMA-level EPIC FAIL proportions with this pandering. One day he’ll look back and wonder how he destroyed his credibility and career beyond repair and realize that this was the moment when he jumped the shark…

Captain America: Somebody got to Perry and now he’s done. Cain is probably getting his arm twisted right now.

Rickey: Donofrio v. Wells was filed on October 27, 2008. What Leo was doing in June is unknown to me, but there is no evidence that he was touting the supposed “two-citizen parent” requirement at that time. In fact, in his SCOTUS petition Leo says that his concerns began “in early October 2008.” As he is (or was) a licensed attorney, I assume that Leo had access to legal research resources other than Justia.

In fact, I’m still not sure what Leo’s gripe is. Is he complaining that he didn’t know about
Minor v. Happersett because Justia misled him? If that is the case, he is even more incompetent than we knew.

Well, I will have to give in a little on this one….however, it’s strange that you say what he was doing or what he was originally espousing was ‘unknown’?!?! LOL However, I was wrong in that his original petition with the state in 08 was to get the SOS to do her job in actually verifying that ALL the candidates on the ballot were in fact eligible. There was Obama who was not eligible due to dual-citizenship, McCain due to being born outside the country, and Calero due to being born outside the country to 2 non-US citizens.

So, I was wrong, but only to a fault. In that Leo was asserting that the SOS do her job in determining if Obama was eligible since he was a dual-citizen – how exactly do you propose he got to be a dual citizen if it wasn’t by way of being born to 1 US citizen parent and 1 alien parent? I mean, I guess you could say he didn’t spell it out exactly that he was asserting that Obama lacked two US citizen parents, but I think you are really nit picking at that point. But yes….that was his original assertion. Whether he made his assertion within your time frame is anyone’s guess and is not the question at hand.

And NO, to my knowledge, he does not blame Justia for his not citing Minor – and I’m not sure where any of you are getting that Leo is asserting any type of conspiracy. Personally, I think you are all fixated on conspiracies – I mean, that’s what this blog is all about, right?

I believe Leo is merely stating that some opinions on Justia were changed, and not by accident, that obscured some pertinent information regarding the NBC issue. You all seem to be WAY more concerned about what Leo thinks than what you all should think about the ramifications and effects of such changes on the general public that rely on that site for legal opinions.

In my opinion, it is not about Obama, NBC, Leo or even the conspiracies that must be developed here on this blog. It’s about the changes that were made and the attempt at hiding information from the public. I don’t think it would have changed much in the way of the results as they stand today, but again that is NOT the point. And the fact that you are all missing the point….well, says it all.

Open your minds to viewing the situation without a partisan slant. What if Justia had changed opinions in a negative way from your viewpoint, hiding an opinion that would have made this blog obsolete? I think it’s all about which side of the fence you are standing

Sally HIll: Well, I will have to give in a little on this one….however, it’s strange that you say what he was doing or what he was originally espousing was unknown’?!?! LOL However, I was wrong in that his original petition with the state in 08 was to get the SOS to do her job in actually verifying that ALL the candidates on the ballot were in fact eligible. There was Obama who was not eligible due to dual-citizenship, McCain due to being born outside the country, and Calero due to being born outside the country to 2 non-US citizens.

What a load of crap!!! Obama announced Feb 10, 2007. Between then and Oct 27, 2008, there is not a single documented word regarding his father’s citizenship from Donofrio, Apuzzo, Taitz or anyone. Not even an internet posting that mentions this issue (despite innumerable ones regarding the birth certificate). Shouldn’t these great patriots have informed their fellow citiizens of this grave crisis while there was still time to do something about it?

By the way, people raised the issues regarding McCain well before he got the Republican nomination. There was a conference discussing it at U Michigan in early 2008. That’s because real legal scholars saw a potential iissue regarding someone born outside the US. All of them agreed there is NO issue with anyone born in the US.

It’s a bullshit issue made up strictly to serve as an ex post facto way to attack Obama once he proved to the satisfaction of all sentient beings (which obviously doesn’t include Perry and Trump) that he was born in the US. If you fall for such unadulterated garbage then that’s your problem.

Sally HIll: And to the person who wanted to school’ me on robot.txt….no need, I’ve got a degree in Web Design.

If you had minimal competence or understanding of web design, you would know that the file is robots.txt, not “robot.txt”.

You’ve repeated the same error in multiple posts, so don’t try to hide behind a claim that this is a typo.

I posted the current content of the robots.txt file from justia and obviously it allows full indexing of the site. No site owner is mandated to allow archiving of their web site by archive.org, and there are many legitimate reasons why a site owner might have used a directive at one time or another to prevent such archiving.

Sally HIll: Well, I will have to give in a little on this one….however, it’s strange that you say what he was doing or what he was originally espousing was unknown’?!?! LOL However, I was wrong in that his original petition with the state in 08 was to get the SOS to do her job in actually verifying that ALL the candidates on the ballot were in fact eligible. There was Obama who was not eligible due to dual-citizenship, McCain due to being born outside the country, and Calero due to being born outside the country to 2 non-US citizens.

What a load of unadulterated nonsense!!! Obama announced Feb 10, 2007. Between then and Oct 27, 2008, there is not a single documented word regarding his father’s citizenship from Donofrio, Apuzzo, Taitz or anyone. Not even an internet posting that mentions this issue (despite innumerable ones regarding the birth certificate). Shouldn’t these great patriots have informed their fellow citiizens of this grave crisis while there was still time to do something about it?

By the way, people raised the issues regarding McCain well before he got the Republican nomination. There was a conference discussing it at U Michigan in early 2008. That’s because real legal scholars saw a potential iissue regarding someone born outside the US. All of them agreed there is NO issue with anyone born in the US.

It’s an “issue” made up strictly to serve as an ex post facto way to attack Obama once he proved to the satisfaction of all sentient beings (which obviously doesn’t include Perry and Trump) that he was born in the US. If you fall for such unadulterated garbage then that’s your problem.

Sally, what the heck are you talking about? Whatever Justia did is entirely irrlevant; the original lawbooks in which the Minor case were printed is what counts. If any of you birthers can show that the original, hard copy of the case proves your take on the matter, power to you. The reason this blog spot is fixated on conspiracies is to debunk the conspiricies, nearly all elaborate and many contradictory to one another, that you birthers spin.
You assert that Mr. Obama was inleigible due to dual citizenship, though no one has EVER proved that. You state that McCain was ineligible because he was born outside the US. If he was born in the Canal Zone, he surely was eligible. The founding fathers would have thought it outrageous that McCain could be rendered ineligible by the very circumstance that his father was defending his country as a member of the military. That certainly could not have been their original intent. Really, sounds uppatriotic to me.

Sally HIll: It’s about the changes that were made and the attempt at hiding information from the public.

Minor v. Happersett says, in dicta, that the court is expressly not ruling or considering whether the offspring of non-citizen parents, born in the US, are citizens at birth. Exact quote;

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

So the existence of a broken link to the Minor case on a given date would help Donofrio, rather than hurt his claims, because it would have made it slightly more difficult for someone who didn’t know how to use Google to find the case, read it, and determine for themselves that Donofrio had misrepresented its holding through selective editing. (The actual holding has nothing to do with natural born citizenship; rather the case holds that women are citizens under the 14th Amendment, but that citizenship by itself is not enough to give them the right to vote.)

The question that was not addressed and clearly left open in Minor was expressly resolved in Wong Kim Ark, which of course is the controlling authority, and which has never been questioned or overruled:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

“While I’m reserving judgement on this whole Justia.com issue, I do see some issues that make me question the legitimacy of this so called innocent mistake’. Justia says there were more cases other than Minor that were affected, but have yet to disclose just exactly what other cases were affected by this innocent scripting mistake’. Why would they block historical pages with robot.txt on all pages? It seems counter productive and almost screams of impropriety when you block something that should be transparent and was transparent prior to the innocent mistake’.”

Three times you put “innocent mistake” in quotes. By doing this, you suggest that Justia did not make an innocent mistake, but that their actions were intentional. This, along with your stated skepticism regarding the truthfulness of Justia’s explanation, indicates to the reader that you are suggesting some kind of cover-up took place to hide the real reasons behind seemingly innocuous errors: i.e., you suggest there there is a conspiracy to hide the truth.

Now, in your latest post you write, “Personally, I think you are all fixated on conspiracies – I mean, that’s what this blog is all about, right?”

Wrong. You are the one suggesting some kind of conspiracy took place. The people who have taken the time to critique your posts find conspiracy theories embraced by birthers, truthers, moon-landing deniers, etc. laughable in the extreme.

JD Reed:
Sally, what the heck are you talking about? Whatever Justia did is entirely irrlevant; the original lawbooks in which the Minor case were printed is what counts. If any of you birthers can show that the original, hard copy of the case proves your take on the matter, power to you. The reason this blog spot is fixated on conspiracies is to debunk the conspiricies, nearly all elaborate and many contradictory to one another, that you birthers spin.
You assert that Mr. Obama was inleigible due to dual citizenship, though no one has EVER proved that. You state that McCain was ineligible because he was born outside the US. If he was born in the Canal Zone, he surely was eligible. The founding fathers would have thought it outrageous that McCain could be rendered ineligible by the very circumstance that his father was defending his country as a member of the military. That certainly could not have been their original intent. Really, sounds uppatriotic to me.

Hollander v. McCain

Case Information
Date Filed / Ended: March 14, 2008 / July 25, 2008
State: New Hampshire
Issue: Candidate Eligibility
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Case 1:08-cv-00099)

Issue:
Whether Senator John McCain is a “natural born citizen” and eligible to be the President of the United States under the provisions of Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.

Status:
Complaint filed on 3/14/08. Motion to Dismiss filed on 4/30/08. Hearing on Motion to Dismiss set for 7/24/08. Motion to Dismiss granted on 7/24/08 and Judgment for defendant entered on 7/25/08.

G:
Well Sven, at least you can take comfort in your delusions by pining your hopes in Sheriff Joe Arpaio as he panders to both Mad Orly and the AZ Tea Party Birthers in claiming that his Cold Case Posse is hard at work investigating the birther claims and that they will deliver a “report” as soon as they can, promising “big shocks”…

It truly is silly season out there in GOP land.ODS seems to have caused collective brain damage.Sheriff Joe is really setting himself up for PUMA-level EPIC FAIL proportions with this pandering.One day he’ll look back and wonder how he destroyed his credibility and career beyond repair and realize that this was the moment when he jumped the shark…

Sheriff Arpaio will be made an offer he cannot refuse and announce he was joking when talked about an investigation. And that will be that.

Sally HIll: In my opinion, it is not about Obama, NBC, Leo or even the conspiracies that must be developed here on this blog. It’s about the changes that were made and the attempt at hiding information from the public. I don’t think it would have changed much in the way of the results as they stand today, but again that is NOT the point. And the fact that you are all missing the point….well, says it all.

And you are missing the point that it’s genuinely silly to claim that a single website has the ability to “hide information from the public” that is part of the public domain, and available on countless other websites, many of which are free to the public (and let’s not forget those quaint “book” things that fill libraries). It would be a genuinely futile endeavour.

“Well, I will have to give in a little on this one….however, it’s strange that you say what he was doing or what he was originally espousing was unknown’?!?! ”

what Rickey wrote was it was unknown to him, what Leo was doing in June.

SH

“So, I was wrong, but only to a fault. In that Leo was asserting that the SOS do her job in determining if Obama was eligible since he was a dual-citizen – how exactly do you propose he got to be a dual citizen if it wasn’t by way of being born to 1 US citizen parent and 1 alien parent? I mean, I guess you could say he didn’t spell it out exactly that he was asserting that Obama lacked two US citizen parents, but I think you are really nit picking at that point. But yes….that was his original assertion. Whether he made his assertion within your time frame is anyone’s guess and is not the question at hand”

Great way to admit, but not admit, you are wrong. How is it nitpicking when someone is pointing out you are wrong. Is it nitpicking to hold a few lines, inadvertently changed on one website about a case that has nothing to do with Presidential eligibility, as part of a scrubbing effort?

SH

“In my opinion, it is not about Obama, NBC, Leo or even the conspiracies that must be developed here on this blog. It’s about the changes that were made and the attempt at hiding information from the public.”

So, it is not about conspiracies, the case of eligibility, or the lawyer pursuing the case. That means it is about the conspiracy to hide the changes to the site. Who is behind this conspiracy? You say it is not about a conspiracy, but you then use a conspiracy to explain your position.

conspiracy- a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. OED

And what do you mean by the conspiracies that must be developed on this blog? Can’t always understand the article from the headline. obamaconspiracy is the site name, but the mission statement clearly states the site exists to debunk ( prove false) the conspiracies bandied about by half-cocked crackpots who have a deep imagination but no substance.

Sally HIll: Well, I will have to give in a little on this one….however, it’s strange that you say what he was doing or what he was originally espousing was unknown’?!?!LOL

So, I was wrong, but only to a fault.In that Leo was asserting that the SOS do her job in determining if Obama was eligible since he was a dual-citizen – how exactly do you propose he got to be a dual citizen if it wasn’t by way of being born to 1 US citizen parent and 1 alien parent?I mean, I guess you could say he didn’t spell it out exactly that he was asserting that Obama lacked two US citizen parents, but I think you are really nit picking at that point.But yes….that was his original assertion.Whether he made his assertion within your time frame is anyone’s guess and is not the question at hand.

Open your minds to viewing the situation without a partisan slant.What if Justia had changed opinions in a negative way from your viewpoint, hiding an opinion that would have made this blog obsolete?I think it’s all about which side of the fence you are standing

What I said is that no one knows what, if anything, Leo was doing about researching natural born citizenship in JUNE 2008. By his own admission, he became concerned about eligibility in October, so I fail to see what relevance there is in what Justia did in June. Why would have motivated Justia to “obscure” rulings on an issue which no one had expressed interest in at the time? The only question which existed about Obama’s eligibility in June, 2008 was whether he was born in Hawaii.

If you don’t believe that, find me one reference to anyone espousing the two-citizen parent theory before Leo raised it in October, 2008.

I personally don’t care what Justia did. I have a difficult time believing that any appreciable number of people were researching natural born citizenship on Justia in the summer of 2008. If you Google “Supreme Court Decisions” the sites come back in this order:

Real lawyers and judges use Lexis or Westlaw. Or they use actual books. (You know what actual books are. That’s what Orly Taitz uses on the day of a hearing.) This debate over Justia is just plain tedious if no one wants to say what substance was changed in Justia. And even if Justia was scrubbed, changed, altered or whatever, the Supreme Court does not use Justia.

Sally HIll: There was Obama who was not eligible due to dual-citizenship,…In that Leo was asserting that the SOS do her job in determining if Obama was eligible since he was a dual-citizen – how exactly do you propose he got to be a dual citizen if it wasn’t by way of being born to 1 US citizen parent and 1 alien parent?

We’ve had other sitting President’s in the past who were dual citizens. Funny how it didn’t seem to hurt their eligibility.

I wonder why you birthers never said anything about them? Oh yeah, they were white.

Captain America: Sheriff Arpaio will be made an offer he cannot refuse and announce he was joking when talked about an investigation. And that will be that.

Well, if the conspiracy is really as powerful and 50-years-spanning as you seem to claim, “they” will rather make that offer to the “cold case posse” which will then mislead Arpaio as to their findings. This would add a layer of credibility. (As I said, if someone with an actual brain became a conspiracy theorist, things would make more sense. But I digress. )

Your statement makes perfectly clear that you are not interested in the truth but only in what you have already decided to be the truth.
You birfers claimed any Obama documentation to be a forgery even before you’ve seen it, simply because you have decided by divine inspiration that “he was born in Kenya”.
Which, on the other hand, is the reason you blindly swallow everything that seems to confirm you, no matter how unsourced or obviously idiotic it is (just today I’ve seen a birther site which displays both forged Kenyan BC’s for Obama as if they could somehow magically both be the real thing, even though the information on them is different).
And many more examples.

And coming back to Arpaio:
What exactly do you think a “cold case posse” somewhere in Burnt Scrotum, AZ, could possibly “investigate” in this issue? Did they go to Hawaii? Did they fly to Kenya? Did they consult with constitutional scholars on the meaning of NBC? Did they subpoena the SSA?
If they’re doing anything, they’re doing research birfer style, by “looking up stuff on the internet”.

(2) A summary of Doc C’s articles (concluding “OMG are these birfers nuts!”)

And regarding the latest WND birfer OMG moment, you bet this will end pretty much the same as Trump’s alleged investigators who “can’t believe what they’re finding”. Remember how great Corsi and Farah are in making up stuff that never materializes. I only say FORGER MIKE. *lol*

… which reminds me of an exchange in “The Big Bang Theory”, paraphrasing:

Koothrapali: Guess who!
Sheldon: Muhammad Lee.
Koothrapali: What? Why?
Sheldon: Well, Muhammad is the world’s most common first name and Lee is the world’s most common last name, so I concluded I’d improve my odds of guessing right.

Daniel: We’ve had other sitting President’s in the past who were dual citizens. Funny how it didn’t seem to hurt their eligibility.

Daniel-You are quite correct that the Constitution is silent regarding dual citizenship Therefore, it is presumptuous to pretend that dual citizenship is relevant to presidential qualification. I would point out that even if the Constitution were to forbid a dual citizen from being President that could only apply to holding dual citizenship while in office. Nothing in the Constitution mandates that a person be qualified for the Presidency before or after their time in office. After all, failing faster than light neutrinos, all 43 Presidents failed to meet the 35 years of age standard and the 14 years residency standard for a good portion of their lives before they took office.

Speaking of faster than light neutrinos:

The bartender said, “I’m sorry, we don’t serve neutrinos here.” A neutrino walked into a bar.

Sally HIll: Open your minds to viewing the situation without a partisan slant. What if Justia had changed opinions in a negative way from your viewpoint, hiding an opinion that would have made this blog obsolete? I think it’s all about which side of the fence you are standing

You would think our economy would be doing so much better just by the demand for replacement irony meters.

If you had been paying attention, there are many who comment here who are not Obama supporters and will not vote for them. If we have a partisan slant, it is partisan to the Constitution and the laws of the country. If Justia would have changed something that would be negative (such as rewriting Minor and WKA the way the birthers think it is written) it may not have been noticed. There are many attorneys here who do their research in real scholarly work and will use Lexis, Westlaw or the actual books for their citations. Leo and WND using only one source shows a real sloppiness of research, not they the were ever interested in really researching the issue. They just want their evil nemesis gone (or the PayPal button to ring).

Captain America: Sheriff Arpaio will be made an offer he cannot refuse and announce he was joking when talked about an investigation. And that will be that.

Birthers do look upon Obama as if he has mythical powers. He has manged to “get to” the entire opposition and make them back track on their birtherism. He has every congressman, senator and judge in his pocket. He has also stopped every leak and, unlike any other President, been able to successfully seal all of his records and doctor every past photo. He was so successful that a majority of Americans believed him. No wonder the birthers call him the messiah,.

This may explain why birther rallies are so small. Obama must have had majority shipped off to the FEMA camps without anybody noticing. He only left a crazy few (Orly, Carl, etc.) to help expose the rest and ship them off.

We can tell how powerful and controlling Obama is by his success in creating an commie single payer health system, the jobs law that only allows union workers, forcing Congress to do whatever he wants with the debt ceiling, taking away all the guns, and signing the US is an Islamic nation act.

Northland10: You would think our economy would be doing so much better just by the demand for replacement irony meters.

If you had been paying attention, there are many who comment here who are not Obama supporters and will not vote for them. If we have a partisan slant, it is partisan to the Constitution and the laws of the country. If Justia would have changed something that would be negative (such as rewriting Minor and WKA the way the birthers think it is written) it may not have been noticed. There are many attorneys here who do their research in real scholarly work and will use Lexis, Westlaw or the actual books for their citations. Leo and WND using only one source shows a real sloppiness of research, not they the were ever interested in really researching the issue. They just want their evil nemesis gone (or the PayPal button to ring).

Well said but it’s pretty obvious by now that “Sally”, like so many other birthers, isn’t really interested in sound reasoning and facts. Some birthers seem to prefer the simple comfort of their delusion based opinions while tucked safely inside a well padded echo chamber.

The birther scam artists like Leo, Orly, Mario and WND are playing them well with their time tested tools of fear and bigotry.

Scientist, I hate to burst your bubble, but I know of posted comments to an article discussing McCain’s eligibility published on the famous law blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, that mentioned Obama’s dual citizenship, from February of 2008.

Sallyven: Scientist, I hate to burst your bubble, but I know of posted comments to an article discussing McCain’s eligibility published on the famous law blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, that mentioned Obama’s dual citizenship, from February of 2008.

Obama is NOT a dual citizen. He may have been as a child-it actually is uncllear whether he was or simply had an option to be one. Either way, so what? He was also under 35 as a child and hadn’t lived in the US for 14 years. Qualifications are as of the time of taking office.

Besides, what does that have to do with 2 citizen parents? You could have 2 citizen parents and be a dual citizen or not, depending on the laws of other countries. Apuzzo and Donofrio are likely considered Italian citiizens under Italian law. So what?

Sallyven, maybe somewhere there were posted comments about Sen. McCain’s eligibility and Pres. Obama’s supposed dual citizenship. It would be nice if you actually provided a citation. We all want to see it before it is scrubbed.

Sallyven:
Scientist, wasn’t it on Obama’s campaign website that he asserted he was born a dual citizen?And if the status at birth is irrelevant, why is the word “born” used in the phrase, “natural born”?

Where is the part about not allowing dual citizenship?

Please point it out:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Sallyven: Scientist, wasn’t it on Obama’s campaign website that he asserted he was born a dual citizen?

No. Show me where he said that. Besides, surely you don’t take everything on Mr. Obama’s campaign web site as true, do you? I believe he was born with a right to claim British and, later, Kenyan citizenship, but never took action to exercise that right, such as going to live in Kenya or applying for a British or Kenyan passport. It’s like an investor holding a call option-they are NOT a shareholder unless they exercise the option. In Obama’s case the option expirng before he ran for President. Epired options are worthless.

Sallyven: And if the status at birth is irrelevant, why is the word “born” used in the phrase, “natural born”?

The phrase only refers to acquiring US ciitiizenship at birth. It does not speak of other country’s laws. If the intent was to bar dual citizens, then terminology such as “exclusively a US citizen” or “solely a US citizen’ would be the proper language. The people who wrote the Constitution were not shy about beinng specific. After all, they said 35 and 14 years residency, not old enough to know a thing or two and lived here a goodly while.

Sallyven:
Scientist, I hate to burst your bubble, but I know of posted comments to an article discussing McCain’s eligibility published on the famous law blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, that mentioned Obama’s dual citizenship, from February of 2008.

What kind of traitor to the U.S. thinks a foreign nation’s laws trump the authority of the U.S. when establishing or assigning the status and legal rights of its own citizens?

Sallyven: Scientist, I hate to burst your bubble, but I know of posted comments to an article discussing McCain’s eligibility published on the famous law blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, that mentioned Obama’s dual citizenship, from February of 2008.

There is no barrier against dual citizenship. At the time Obama ran for president he wasn’t a dual citizen. Besides Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s VP, was a dual greek and American citizen and served as VP.

Sallyven: Scientist, wasn’t it on Obama’s campaign website that he asserted he was born a dual citizen? And if the status at birth is irrelevant, why is the word “born” used in the phrase, “natural born”?

Before you can say dual citizenship is a problem, you need to point out a single authority in history that says it is. Unfortunately, no such authority exists. Birthers think simply repeating the ravings of poker players over and over someone make something the law. Dual citizenship was irrelevant to natural born status under the English common law and no serious person disputes the term came from English law.

I found an interesting article on newsbusters.org, a right-wing website. On 9/29/08 someone named P.J. Gladnick posted the “bombshell” that Obama had Kenyan citizenship until it automatically expired in 1982.

The interesting thing is that nowhere in the article does Gladnick claim that the dual citizenship disqualified Obama, only that it somehow reflected badly upon him. No mention of Vattel or the “two-citizen parents” requirement – more evidence that no one had thought of it until Donofrio dreamed it up sometime in October.

I see that Sallyven did not provide a link to the claim that the Volokh conspiracy posted a comment in 2008 that then Sen. Obama was a dual citzen, despite being challenged to do so. Rather, he she or it posted a new claim that candidate Obama said so, of course, without a cite or link.

I concur that this is irrelevant. The Constitution does not bar dual citizenship. Wong Kim Ark could have moved back to China and the Chinese would not have cared. The Supreme Court clearly did not care that he could have claimed Chinese citizenship while staying here. I’ve been to Ireland, and I suspect my relatives there would take me back, but that does not affect my U S citizenship.

We all come from somewhere. In this country, your ancestral home is trivia.

The position of the United States was that our citizens did not owe allegiance to any other nation. This did not mean that the laws of other nations determined who are citizens were, as that would just be stupid. It meant that we did not recognize other nations claims of allegiance on our citizens. It was simply a fact that foreign nations did claim the allegiance of some of our citizens, though primarily our naturalized citizens. In response to this, our state department and eventually Congress would proclaim that we reputdiate all claims of foreign allegiance on our native born and naturalized citizens. This meant we would protect such citizen from claims of allegiance when they were out of the country and repel any efforts of foreign nations to protect such citizens when they were in our nation. There was disagreement over what happened when a citizen became domiciled oversees as some thought domicile sufficient to change allegiance while others thought foreign naturalization was required. Itis actually a pretty complicated subject.

Ballantine, while that is interesting, I think it is irrelevant. I have never seen anyone, including Mr. Apuzzo or Mr. Donofrio, claim that England or Kenya was asserting that Pres. Obama was a citizen. He has been to both places, and was not drafted into the military, or presented a bill for back taxes. No one blocked his path when he sought to leave.

The dual citizenship argument arises because unlike the born-in-Kenya argument, dual citizenship relies on undisputed facts. So those folks who cannot stand that a Black man is President, but do not want to follow Lucas Smith and Orly Taitz down the rabbit hole, say, “Aha, his Father was British, therefore he is not a natural born citizen.” The legal theory is unsupported by anyone. As I said, in this country, where you are from, or who your Father is or was, is irrelevant to your rights, and is thus an intetresting fact, but ultimately trivia.

John Reilly: I see that Sallyven did not provide a link to the claim that the Volokh conspiracy posted a comment in 2008 that then Sen. Obama was a dual citzen, despite being challenged to do so. Rather, he she or it posted a new claim that candidate Obama said so, of course, without a cite or link.I concur that this is irrelevant. The Constitution does not bar dual citizenship. Wong Kim Ark could have moved back to China and the Chinese would not have cared. The Supreme Court clearly did not care that he could have claimed Chinese citizenship while staying here. I’ve been to Ireland, and I suspect my relatives there would take me back, but that does not affect my U S citizenship.We all come from somewhere. In this country, your ancestral home is trivia.

Not only that but he could have lived there and then came back to the US 14 years before and ran for president. Or he could have came back and forth and been a resident for a culmalative of 14 years. US Citizens cannot lose their citizenship no matter how long they are overseas unless they renounce. Mandoli V. Acheson.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Not only that but he could have lived there and then came back to the US 14 years before and ran for president. Or he could have came back and forth and been a resident for a culmalative of 14 years.

Hoover’s and Eisenhower’s 14 years were cumulative, not consecutive.

Something that is not understood about the Law of the Return: if you are Jewish, and step onto Israeli soil, you are considered a citizen. My cousin lived there for less than one year. While there, she turned 17 (17 is the age of majority in Israel). She never took any step towards citizenship, but the day after her birthday, two recruiters came to their home and told her she was being drafted into the IDF. She reported the next day.

I was told the same thing: if hostilities started, I would be expected to serve, even though I did not apply for citizenship. As I wrote before, I went to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, and spoke with a legal affairs officer. He told me that serving in a foreign army would not cause loss of US citizenship. I would have to renounce it in writing.

My point goes to the repeated claim that Obama was governed by the 1948 British Nationality Act which I think they all have made. If Obama was born in the early republic under identical circumstances, he would have been a British Subject purusant ot 4 Geo. II, ch. 21. However, under the laws of England, such a person was only treated as a British Subject, and owing allegiance to England, if he moved back to England. So while residing in the United States, even England didn’t consider a person like Obama to be a dual citizen. In the United States, such foreign law was irrelevant and such person was deemed to owe allegiance solely to the United States at least until they moved oversees. My point is that the whole notion that the nationality laws of England or any other nation were relevant to the status of native born Americans is completely contrary to history.

Do tell, if the President and his mythical “handlers” of the NWO have ALL the politicians in this country in his/there back pocket, how come he can’t get the Republicans to vote for ANY of his proposals…..?

Ballantine: My point goes to the repeated claim that Obama was governed by the 1948 British Nationality Act which I think they all have made. If Obama was born in the early republic under identical circumstances, he would have been a British Subject purusant ot 4 Geo. II, ch. 21. However, under the laws of England, such a person was only treated as a British Subject, and owing allegiance to England, if he moved back to England. So while residing in the United States, even England didn’t consider a person like Obama to be a dual citizen.

Exactly. Obama was never a dual citizen. He only had an unexercised option to move to the UK or Kenya and claim citizenship upon arrival. Unless there is evidence that he actually exercised that option he was not a dual citizen.

And even if he were, nothing in the law bars someone who holds other passports from being President (though any individual voter is free to consider that as a factor in deciding their vote).

Bovril: if the President and his mythical “handlers” of the NWO have ALL the politicians in this country in his/there back pocket, how come he can’t get the Republicans to vote for ANY of his proposals

Secondly, I am awfully glad that were I to birth a child in another country, USA’s citizenship laws still would apply, and my child would be a US citizen. (Very, very few countries would grant my child their citizenship solely as the consequence of being born there.) But of course, if that country gave away more free stuff than the US, I might prefer the foreign citizenship for my child.

Thirdly, why do you think it is that the founders inserted the phrase, Natural born citizen, into their presidential qualifications, i.e., what were they trying to prevent or ensure?

Is it absurd to conclude they were thinking about “allegiance,” and they meant at birth (used the word “born”), and they had been schooled in the long-standing notion of “partus sequitur patrem”—that citizenship derives from the father?

And why is it that naturalized citizens, in the Oath of Allegiance, are required to renounce foreign citizenships, yet everyone thinks it is somehow not a problem to allow dual citizenship, if acquired at birth, to exist?

Sorry, I know I threw too much at you guys all at once. Take your time.

In honor of you, Leo’s diggings on the wayback machine and the extended conversation here Here are three snapshots ( I believe to be all inclusive) from another private, albeit politically motivated, website–fight the smears.

I don’t call what occurs here scrubbing, but i do find it interesting how the initial and secondary claims have been winnowed—and the chaff are terms like naturalborn citizen, and dual citizen. The tertiary simply makes the claim that Barack Obama is an American citizen. All in all it is a fun exercise in close reading from both the “birther” and the “supporter” perspective. ( I can’t recall what terms Dr. C. settled upon as appropriately neutral for the groups–that thread quickly devolved into putdown posturing!)

Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

October 2 2008
The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate

Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Next time someone talks about Barack’s birth certificate, make sure they see this page.

added is this footnote from factcheck
FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Current ( sometime after July 2011 )
In 2008, President Obama’s campaign released his certification of live birth—the legal birth certificate provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state.

But conspiracy theorists have continued to question the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate in order to manipulate voters into thinking that the President isn’t an American citizen.

It’s time to put an end to this fake controversy—and refocus on debating how we grow our economy, create jobs, get our fiscal house in order, and educate our children for the challenges of the 21st century.

To move on from this distraction, President Obama directed his attorneys to request a waiver from the State of Hawaii to release the long-form version of his birth certificate. That waiver was granted.

END QUOTATIONS

Been a long time since I posted here Dr. C. but I maintain my reading habit. ( I like the post and pics of your trip to meet Obama in N Carolina.)

Thirdly, why do you think it is that the founders inserted the phrase, Natural born citizen, into their presidential qualifications, i.e., what were they trying to prevent or ensure?

Probably because they were English lawyers and England only let the native born hold office. The only evidence we have from the Convention is that some people wanted to follow the English rule of native birth, others didn’t want any limitations at all. The only fear expressed was that foreign born persons would have attachements to the land of their birth. No one mentioned parentage at all.

Is it absurd to conclude they were thinking about “allegiance,” and they meant at birth (used the word “born”), and they had been schooled in the long-standing notion of “partus sequitur patrem”—that citizenship derives from the father?

As wrong as you can be. They were English lawyers who were schooled in Coke and Blackstone and understood allegiance was derived from place of birth as Madison himself said. No framer every said anything that remotely supports tha notion that citizenship derived from the parents. No legal authority in the founding era remotely supports such notion. Time to research rather than read birther blogs.

And why is it that naturalized citizens, in the Oath of Allegiance, are required to renounce foreign citizenships, yet everyone thinks it is somehow not a problem to allow dual citizenship, if acquired at birth, to exist?

Again, you simply don’t understand the law of allegaince. Maybe you should read Story, Kent, Dane or any other legal writer of the period. No native born person has every been required to take an oath of allegiance because we defined allegiance by place of birth and hence they owed their natural allegaince to us. A foreign born person owed his natural allegiance to the nation of his birth and hence needed to renoucde such allegiance. The trouble with the arguments you make is you can’t cite any authority to support your claims. Do you not know that all early american authority defined allegiance by place of birth, that no early authority said being a dual citizen was relevant to natural born status and no early authority said that citizenship descended from the father. Are you lazy or dishontest?

Sallyven: Secondly, I am awfully glad that were I to birth a child in another country, USA’s citizenship laws still would apply, and my child would be a US citizen. (Very, very few countries would grant my child their citizenship solely as the consequence of being born there.)

That would depend on your status and your spouse’s there. Most countries would grant citiizenship if one parent had legal status there. Canada grants citizenship regardless of status. At the time Obama was born, many countries did. Regardless it is up to them.

Sallyven: Thirdly, why do you think it is that the founders inserted the phrase, Natural born citizen, into their presidential qualifications, i.e., what were they trying to prevent or ensure?

If you read the discussions and the history of the time, the concern was prinicipally about the possibility that the people, being used to a monarchy, would desire a monarch (some felt Washington should be King). That would open the door for a junior son of a royal house to move to the US and present himself as King. Frankly, the entire clause is regarded by a great many legal scholars as unnecesary back then and certainly unnecessary today. In a poll of constitutional scholars, it ranked as one of the worst clauses in the Constitution.

Sallyven: And why is it that naturalized citizens, in the Oath of Allegiance, are required to renounce foreign citizenships, yet everyone thinks it is somehow not a problem to allow dual citizenship, if acquired at birth, to exist?

You do reallize that has 0 effect under foreign law. Almost all countries today require a formal renunciation at their diplomatic facilities, as the US does. Approval is not automatic. At least 99.9% of naturalized US citizens do not bother to renounce their birth citizenship and remain dual citizens. In most cases their children born in the US would have citizenship rights in the other country. In some cases, grandchlldren would as well.

Sallyven: First off, I am not Sven, as Dr. C has vouched months ago.Secondly, I am awfully glad that were I to birth a child in another country, USA’s citizenship laws still would apply, and my child would be a US citizen. (Very, very few countries would grant my child their citizenship solely as the consequence of being born there.) But of course, if that country gave away more free stuff than the US, I might prefer the foreign citizenship for my child.Thirdly, why do you think it is that the founders inserted the phrase, Natural born citizen, into their presidential qualifications, i.e., what were they trying to prevent or ensure?Is it absurd to conclude they were thinking about “allegiance,” and they meant at birth (used the word “born”), and they had been schooled in the long-standing notion of “partus sequitur patrem”—that citizenship derives from the father?And why is it that naturalized citizens, in the Oath of Allegiance, are required to renounce foreign citizenships, yet everyone thinks it is somehow not a problem to allow dual citizenship, if acquired at birth, to exist?Sorry, I know I threw too much at you guys all at once. Take your time.By the way–the comments are still posted at Volokh’s site.

What they were looking to prevent was some down on his luck royal from immigrating to this country and serving as President that’s what they were trying to prevent.

Actually that requirement is rarely enforced when it comes to renunciation of foreign citizenship. There has been no problem for dual citizenship to exist at birth. Spiro Agnew was dual greek and american citizen and served as VP

What stikes me about this nonsense is the lact of critical thinking involved. England after the war could have made everyone in America and their descendants for as many generations as it wanted British subjects. Only an idiot would think that would mean we would have no citizens or persons eligible to be President. Any foreign nation could grant citizenship to everyone in America if it wanted. We better not let this get out or other nations will firgure out how to deprive us of having a President. Hard to believe anyone is this stupid.

Sallyven: Is it absurd to conclude they were thinking about “allegiance,” and they meant at birth

It is absurd to assume that focusing on “allegiance at birth” would somehow be a “strong protection” from foreign influence.

First, what is different, psychologically, if the parents naturalize one day before or one day after the birth of their child? Zilch.

Second, what is different, legally, if another country claims the child as its citizen because of one parent’s citizenship on the day of birth, or because of any other foreign law?
A Kenyan law “Everyone born to a Kenyan is a Kenyan citizen” is as good or as bad as “Everyone born to someone who is currently a Kenyan citizen is a Kenyan citizen” or “Everyone born in the US is a Kenyan citizen”.

Third, you keep confounding “allegiance” in your arguments.
If it means “loyalty”, it is evident that the circumstances of one’s birth, or the legal status of one’s parents, does not guarantee anything.
If it means “required to follow the laws and demands of another country”, it is trivial that the US do not recognize such duties for their own citizens.
If German law mandates that you need to shave once a month, the US will not enforce this on a US-German dual citizen.
Therefore there is no need to protect the office of President from such scenarios, as there would never be a need for the President to obey any foreign orders simply because he is also a foreign citizen.
Much less of course if he no longer is a foreign citizen but only was at birth.

The natural *born* clause was intended only to protect the US from some foreign king coming over, naturalizing and then taking power.
Since it’s hard to retroactively change one’s birthplace, being born a citizen is an effective protection against that.

None of the stuff birfers invent is a more effective protection, so it’s idiotic to assume the Founders somehow shared those ridiculous ideas.

It is in fact telling that most birfer arguments to emotion go “but then the son of Saddam Hussein could become President if he were born here”, but totally forget the other two requirements in the Constitution.
Or the fact that being born to two citizen parents doesn’t guarantee you’re not an America-hating gay Islamist terrorist Nazi marxist, or whatever the name-calling of the day may be.

Sallyven: Here’s something I find interesting. I take it from your comments that you are opposed to birthright citizenship for children whose parents are here illegally. Without exception, I have found birthers take that position (some non-birthers do as well). You cite the fact that most countries, other than the US and Canada, require that at least one parent have legal residency. That is indeed true. However, the vast majority of those countries have no restriction on naturalized citizens in the highest office. Quite a few have elected naturalized citizens as Prime Minister or President.

So if you are going to argue that the US should follow other countries regarding citizenship, then it should also follow them in opening up all offices to naturalized citizens. After all, there is no evidence to support the contention that naturalized citizens are less loyal. Quite the opposite, i would think.

The founders were all familiar with British succession, where they got George I, who was born in Germany and spoke German. And we know the grandfather clause was specifically designed to make Alexander Hamilton eligible. But who cares? The Supreme Court looked at this in Wong Kim Ark and found him to be a natural born citizen. One hundred failed lawsuits have failed to get anywhere. And despite all the noise the birthers have created, they did not get a single representative or senator to oppose certification of Pres. Obama’s election. There are a fair number of them who don’t believe in evolution, or who believe if you give the rich (which now includes me) even more tax breaks that the economy will magically improve despite all evidence to the contrary.

All of this attempt to make a Black man ineligible, unless he qualifies by making really bad pizza, is designed to make Republicans look foolish. In this current cycle both Mr. Trump and Gov. Perry damaged their campaigns with this foolishness. Gov. Perry broke the Olympic record for back-pedaling yesterday and it may not cure his self-created problem.

Pandering to folks who think the earth is flat is not the path to success. The earth is not flat. Americans walked on the moon. President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen. It’s time to move on to real problems .

Scientist: Sallyven: Here’s something I find interesting. I take it from your comments that you are opposed to birthright citizenship for children whose parents are here illegally. Without exception, I have found birthers take that position (some non-birthers do as well). You cite the fact that most countries, other than the US and Canada, require that at least one parent have legal residency. That is indeed true. However, the vast majority of those countries have no restriction on naturalized citizens in the highest office. Quite a few have elected naturalized citizens as Prime Minister or President.So if you are going to argue that the US should follow other countries regarding citizenship, then it should also follow them in opening up all offices to naturalized citizens. After all, there is no evidence to support the contention that naturalized citizens are less loyal. Quite the opposite, i would think.

I’m still curious how they would treat someone who was born out of wedlock of rape when the mother didn’t know the identity of the assailant. How do they determine the citizenship of the unknown attacker?

E Glenn Harcsar: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959.

I wonder why birthers never claimed that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii but two years (or more) earlier, before it became a state.
(I know there are some crackpots over at Dr Kate’s who claim he is much older than 50 but they never went through with that thought.)

It would be a conspiracy theory that requires much less stretches of credibility (such as the “SAD flew to Kenya, alone and highly pregnant, paying an enormous amount of money, just to give birth there” angle). It would *only* require an effort of a handful of people to create a birth certificate with a wrong birth date, not hiding zillions of pointers to actual Kenyan birth (including all Kenyans ever involved) or trying to reinterpret SCOTUS decisions (which naturally does not fly with the general public).

But then again, I could dream up a much more intelligent and consistent conspiracy theory (prize question: would it still be a conspiracy theory then?) than standard birtherism any day of the week. 😉

A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder.

The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar some birth control methods, including IUDs and “morning-after pills…”

The amendment has been endorsed by candidates for governor from both major parties, and it appears likely to pass…The Mississippi amendment aims to sidestep existing legal battles, simply stating that “the term person’ or persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

Evangelicals and other longtime abortion opponents have pressed the case, and Proposition 26 has the support of a range of political leaders. Its passage could energize similar drives brewing in Florida, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin and other states.

Christian groups including the American Family Association and the Family Research Council are firmly behind the proposal. Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, said he did not agree that the Supreme Court would necessarily reject a personhood amendment. The ultimate goal, he said, is a federal amendment, with a victory in Mississippi as the first step.

Not that matters a whit who you are but your blithering is flat out wrong as proved by actual, relevant legal authorities and your delusional opinions are entirely irrelevant. Your understanding of history and law is laughable.

“Sorry, I know I threw too much at you guys all at once. Take your time.”

“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
– US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)

Oh Magic M, You are really bringing me back. Close reading from that line captured from fight the smears recalls the old gem that Stan Ann, per HI law at the time, was not old enough to confer citizenship. Probably best to skip mentioning it altogether–as fightthesmears did in the next round.

I hope dr C picks up on your prize question idea and turns it into a contest.( Although it would be tough to beat Obama as a third generation operative–no standard birtherism there!)

It always stuns me when they make that argument. “So if being born here is all it takes, you’re saying you’d support one of Osama bin Laden’s wives visiting the US, having his child, who is raised as an America-hating Muslim, and then they become President and there’s nothing we could do to prevent it because they were eligible”.

I just think…wow. They completely skip the step that the American people would have to elect said person. They seem to feel like they just…become President.

The fact that birthers equate mere eligibility for the office, with holding the office itself, it just stunning to me. They want something like you have in Iran, or Egypt, where some sort of Purity Council tosses all the “undesirables” (often people who might threaten their power) off the ballot.

In the end, it comes down to the simple fact that they don’t trust the American people – they voted for a candidate the birthers didn’t like last time, and they see no way to reconcile that with their “America is always right!” jingoism. They feel like the only way to ensure that America makes the “right” choice (read: the one they want) is to ensure that voters don’t get the option of voting for any other.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I’m still curious how they would treat someone who was born out of wedlock of rape when the mother didn’t know the identity of the assailant.How do they determine the citizenship of the unknown attacker?

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I’m still curious how they would treat someone who was born out of wedlock of rape when the mother didn’t know the identity of the assailant. How do they determine the citizenship of the unknown attacker?

I believe that generally, the child’s citizenship would depend on the mother. If she was a citizen/legal resident, the child would be a citizen of the country they were born in. If not, the child would have whatever citizenship the mother held.

Such laws do create the possibility of stateless individuals. Some countries, like Brazil, are pure jus soli. Only those born in Brazil are Brazilian (I believe there is an exception if you are posted abroad on governnment business). So imagine a Brazilian tourist who gives birth in Germany. The child would not be a German citizen, since the parents are not legal residents in Germany. Nor would the child be Brazilian, because they weren’t born in Brazil. So one country or the other would have to make an exception and grant the child a passport.

It’s amazing how so many on the right in the US actually see eye-to-eye with the Iranian mullahs on most everything. They are both anti-gay, anti-women, against all sex outside (and inside) marriage, militaristic. worship oil and other fossil fuels, believe that everyone who disagrees is evil.

Scientist: The child would not be a German citizen, since the parents are not legal residents in Germany. Nor would the child be Brazilian, because they weren’t born in Brazil. So one country or the other would have to make an exception and grant the child a passport.

Or you’re stuck in an international airport for a few years working on a movie sequel with Tom Hanks.

The bigger and sadder truth here is that these sad slugs only shy away from expressing deplorable views and supporting deplorable acts, not because they are lies or wrong on their face, but because they are at least aware that they come across as lunatics and cause sane peope to recoil in horror from them.

Then again, most of their sad “red meat” base are even worse and more pathetic, lacking even that level of situational awareness to realize how crazy they sound…

Tarrant: The fact that birthers equate mere eligibility for the office, with holding the office itself, it just stunning to me. They want something like you have in Iran, or Egypt, where some sort of Purity Council tosses all the “undesirables” (often people who might threaten their power) off the ballot.

In the end, it comes down to the simple fact that they don’t trust the American people – they voted for a candidate the birthers didn’t like last time, and they see no way to reconcile that with their “America is always right!” jingoism. They feel like the only way to ensure that America makes the “right” choice (read: the one they want) is to ensure that voters don’t get the option of voting for any other.

Very truly scary if these types of laws pass. or gain traction. (Then again, Alabama…not surprised they’d pull something like that there.) The Prohibition example is probably the closest reference we have in the US to a colossal bad-consequences piece of restrictive legislation…but I fear in many ways bills like this are 1000 times worse.

Daniel: We’ve had other sitting President’s in the past who were dual citizens. Funny how it didn’t seem to hurt their eligibility.

I wonder why you birthers never said anything about them? Oh yeah, they were white.

Sitting PresidentS? As far as I know, only Thomas Jefferson had French citizenship when in the White House. Curtis and Agnew were onlya Vice-President, and Arthur’s British citizenship is very doubtful.

What about the Huguenots, you might say. But there, you have to distinguish between countries which automatically confer citizenship on the foreign-born descendants of their citizens (Greece. Italy and a few others, but also Germany before 2000) and countries which expect foreign born who can claim citizenship through descent to apply for it at the local embassy or consulate (Kenya, the USA, Belgium and, of course, Germany after 2000). When the Huguenot law still obtained, France expected them to register at the embassy. They were given natural born citizenship status (a bit funny, as the same Assembly that gave the right of return to Huguenots had also established jus soli in the whole of France) and if they returned to France, they were compensated for the loss of property of their ancestors. So, in a sense, the Huguenot presdidents were only “potential” Frenchmen.

So, what is worse: 1) having a citizenship forced on you at birth (Agnew and Eisenhower, but Eisenhower later lost it) 2) receiving the right to another citizenship at birth (but never applying for it) 3) actually asking to be naturalized?

The Irish yesterday chose a new president. One candidate was potentially a citizen of THREE other countries, one had applied for and received US naturalization. Guess who of both candidates was always asked questions about her nationality?

Actually, as I posted here yesterday, Sheriff Joe just told Orly and the AZ Tea Party Birthers that he plans to have a report of their “findings” soon and even “take action” and promised “surprises”. He emphasized to her & that crowd that he now views this as a high priority and something that must be done *before* the 2012 election.

See for yourself, as there is video confirming his latest pandering proclamations to these demented tools: (note: 10 min long…mostly because Mad Orly rambles on and on and on…)

Sef: Sounds like you’re preparing to move those goalposts again. Slow down, the sheriff said it might take up to 5 years.

So with him & Donald Trump doubling back down on the stupid, this truly is the silliest that the GOP political silly season has ever stooped to…and it appears there is no floor, so expect further bizarre crazy in the months to come.

You know it has become over-the-top bat-sh*t insane bad when *EVEN* Pat Robertson is sounding the alarm and publically telling the crazies to tone it down:

misha: A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder.

So, theoretically, would a guy who ran his company into bankruptcy be guilty of murder? Seems to me the SCOTUS has made companies and other organizations out to be ‘legal persons’.

(I gotta look up the name of that decision so I don’t look like I’m blowing hot air when I bring this up).

Agnew’s father naturalized prior to his birth. He changed his last name upon arrival in the country and so you must search under his original name, not Agnew. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Agnew was a NBC.

Oh yes, and Curtis was born in Kansas when it was a territory of the US, but it was still considered under the jurisdiction of the US; therefore he would have been considered born on US soil.

His mother, while 3/4 Indian and 1/4 French, obtained her US Citizenship prior to Charles’ birth through Acts passed in Congress.

Curtis too was a NBC.

Chester Arthur is another story. I see you don’t choose to believe he was born a dual-citizen; however, since his father didn’t naturalize until 14 years after his birth he was born a dual citizen just like Obama, with British/American citizenship. He wanted to confuse people with his birth date and history is very murky about his date of birth because for awhile he used the birth certificate of his deceased brother who died as a young child.

Excuse me: “And like Barack Obama, Agnew’s father was not a U.S. citizen when Agnew was born. To evidence this, I offer the Agnew family’s entry in the 1920 U.S. Census (see lines 72-75), where just three lines above the entry for one-year-old Spiro Agnew, Theodore Agnew’s citizenship is clearly listed as “Alien”

– George Romney was born in Mexico and ran for president in 1968.
– Candidate (1980) Lowell Weicker was born in Paris, France to US citizens, though his mother was born in India and her father was a British General.
– Candidate (1916) Charles Evan Hughes was born in the United States to an American mother and a father who was a citizen of the UK at the time of Hughes’ birth.

Head Researcher: Thank you!!! I had to adjust the definition a little to keep it clean. Plus, I had to adjust the notes a little bit. OH, I just bet Para-Cletus will have a hissy fit when he reads that!!!

The Head Researcher

Thank you!!! I had to do some editing, because Donofrio actually slipped in a Vattel quote, not a Minor Happersett quote. But one thing I went ahead and did, which I have been putting off, is explaining why Wong Kim Ark has that Minor language in it, which in real life Internet debates, Vattle Birthers always mis-represent as affirming Minor.

Whew. My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, helped me keep it short and sweet as possible. Now, I can just cut and paste from it.

Sally HIll:
Oh yes, and Curtis was born in Kansas when it was a territory of the US, but it was still considered under the jurisdiction of the US; therefore he would have been considered born on US soil.

Actually, according to U.S. Law, territories are not part of the United States. If they were, then there would be no need for additional provisions for Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam to grant them CItizenship. They would have been covered as part of 8 USC 1401, which mirrors exactly the language of the Constitution.

His mother, while 3/4 Indian and 1/4 French, obtained her US Citizenship prior to Charles’ birth through Acts passed in Congress.

Actually, during the time, there were U.S. Indians who were considered ineligible for U.S. Citizenship. The rest got their citizenship with treaties signed by the tribes (See Elk v. Wilkins), and they were not under the jurisdiction of the United States. And the main law that granted the Indians their citizenship was actually written and passed by Charles Curtis himself when he was in the Senate (before he became Vice President). You also have no further evidence that Curtis’s mother ever got citizenship before Curtis was born.

Curtis too was a NBC.

I agree with you, but not for the reasons you state. The fact is that Curtis was born a citizen. It doesn’t matter who his parents were, nor where he was born. The mere fact that he was born a citizen is sufficient to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Chester Arthur is another story.I see you don’t choose to believe he was born a dual-citizen;

I really don’t care whether he was born a dual-citizen or not. The United States is a sovereign nation, and I have a hard time believing that the Founders would allow each and every foreign nation to have an absolute veto power over who is and is not eligible to be President of the United States. What you’re basically saying is that because he was born a dual citizen (which means that he was born a citizen by 2 different nation’s citizenship laws), he is ineligible. This makes a de-facto veto by every foreign nation into declaring who can and cannot be President. It makes no sense that the founders would give up our national sovereignity over this.

Let me give you an example…

What’s preventing North Korea from making a citizenship, and then declaring that everybody who is born a U.S. Citizen, is also born this paticular North Korean citizenship. Any baby in the United States would therefore be born a dual citizen, and therefore according to you ineligible to be President of the United States. Wait 40 years, and the U.S. would have absolutely nobody actually eligible to be President of the United States.

however, since his father didn’t naturalize until 14 years after his birth he was born a dual citizen just like Obama, with British/American citizenship.

And guess what. His political enemies, the same ones that tried to say that he was ineligible because he was born in Canada, knew that his father didn’t Naturalize until he was 14 years old. And not one of them brought it up. Don’t you think that if it truly was a disqualifying factor for the President, the same people who worked so hard to try to prove that he was ineligible for the Vice Presidency would have used this information to make sure that he was actually inelgiible?

He wanted to confuse people with his birth date and history is very murky about his date of birth because for awhile he used the birth certificate of his deceased brother who died as a young child.

Actually, it was his political enemies who made it murky. His Political enemies were the ones that were claiming that he was born in Canada, rather than the United States. Arthur had always maintained that he was born in Vermont. Arthur’s political enemies claimed that he was born 10 miles further north in Canada, rather than in the Northern area of Vermont. They proved nothing, of course.

misha: Excuse me: “And like Barack Obama, Agnew’s father was not a U.S. citizen when Agnew was born. To evidence this, I offer the Agnew family’s entry in the 1920 U.S. Census (see lines 72-75), where just three lines above the entry for one-year-old Spiro Agnew, Theodore Agnew’s citizenship is clearly listed as “Alien”

– George Romney was born in Mexico and ran for president in 1968.
– Candidate (1980) Lowell Weicker was born in Paris, France to US citizens, though his mother was born in India and her father was a British General.
– Candidate (1916) Charles Evan Hughes was born in the United States to an American mother and a father who was a citizen of the UK at the time of Hughes’ birth.

You forgot John C. Frémont (1856), who including having a foreign way of spelling his name (who uses emphesis marks anyways), was born out of an affair between a French Indentured Servent and the mistress of the house that he served. He also holds the distinction of being the first Republican Presidential Candidate.

Sally HIll: Chester Arthur is another story. I see you don’t choose to believe he was born a dual-citizen; however, since his father didn’t naturalize until 14 years after his birth he was born a dual citizen just like Obama, with British/American citizenship

And the country survived. In fact it went on to become a great superpower. By the reckoning of most historians Chester Arthur was an average to somewhat above average President. His major accomplishment is considered to be reforming the civil service from a den of political patronage to a professional organization. Any sensible person should consider that a good thing.

I have a fondness for him because he is buried not far from my house in Albany Rural Cemetery and my post office is the converted church where his father was the minister.

The bottom line is that having had dual citizenship at birth is in no way a disqualification from serving as President and doing as good a job as those whose parents were here long enough to have lost citizenship in their ancestral homeland.

Sally HIll: Agnew’s father naturalized prior to his birth. He changed his last name upon arrival in the country and so you must search under his original name, not Agnew.

That is debatable. But suppose he naturalized. Did he then go to the Greek Embassy and renounce Greek citizenship? That is very doubtful, to say the least, since the frequency at which people actually take the trouble to do that is extremely low. So, Agnew Sr was almost certainly a Greek citizen until the day he died. And, under Greek law, Spiro was a Greek citizen at birth and remained so his whole life (including his time as VP) unless he went to the Greek Embassy and renounced. Did he? Unknown.

No bubble is burst since everyone agrees Agnew was an NBC, given that there is no reason to doubt his birth in Baltimore. That is unless his b.c., which no ever asked to see, is a fraud and his mother journeyed to Greece leaving his Greek father back in Baltimore, dropped little Spiro in Piraeus General Hospital and then high-tailed it back to Baltimore, while her mother falsely registered the birth, so that little Spiro could grow up to be President.

Chester Arthur is another story.I see you don’t choose to believe he was born a dual-citizen; however, since his father didn’t naturalize until 14 years after his birth he was born a dual citizen just like Obama, with British/American citizenship.He wanted to confuse people with his birth date and history is very murky about his date of birth because for awhile he used the birth certificate of his deceased brother who died as a young child.

But then, I don’t think I’m telling you anything you didn’t already know.

No, he was natural born citizen that under English law could have elected to become a British subject. The same could be said of Woodrow Wilson as one only needed a British grandfather to be covered under British nationality acts of the time. The same probably applies to Andrew Johnson, though we don’t actually know if his father was born in the US or in England and don’t know if he was a citizen. No one cared. Congress actually debated Johnson’s eligiblity. All they discussed was whether he was a native born citizen. Nothing else mattered.

You still don’t seem to understand that asserting that dual citizenship is a problem means nothing unless you can find someone who actually said it was a problem and no founder or court ever said it was. Only birthers are stupid enough to think that we would let foreign nations determine who are citizens are.

ballantine: Only birthers are stupid enough to think that we would let foreign nations determine who are citizens are.

Their most dreaded case, WKA, even mentioned the subject:

Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.

Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport, and they have never been considered in either country as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.

That’s pretty funny considering “Sally” (aka prolific birther troll Scott Brown*) prefers the opinion of birther huckster and occasional attorney Leo Donofrio over the opinion of conservative Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor when it comes to declaring (and comprehending U.S. history and laws) that the President is a natural born citizen.

Northland10: Their most dreaded case, WKA, even mentioned the subject:
Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.

Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport, and they have never been considered in either country as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.

Hi majority will, twice in this thread you have mentioned justice day-oconnor. To be fair to those who read things on the Internet and believe them, could you clarify if her opinion stands as dicta or precedent. 😉

By the way, Leo posts this morning dianna cotter’s finding about Obama,s favorite law firm perkinscole using and citing case law from justia. Something to look into. This media that we share may not have legal weight to shepardize, but it sheppards nonetheless those who would be herd,rather than heard. I thin we can agree on the rhetoric at play

Sally HIll: Curtis was born in Kansas when it was a territory of the US, but it was still considered under the jurisdiction of the US; therefore he would have been considered born on US soil.

dunstvangeet: Actually, according to U.S. Law, territories are not part of the United States. If they were, then there would be no need for additional provisions for Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam to grant them CItizenship.

Candidate (1964) Barry Goldwater was born outside the United States, in the Arizona Territory, before Arizona was a state.

Keith: You might want to check your sources credibility on this one. It is my understanding that the US didn’t start using birth certificates until around 1900. Arthur was born in 1829 and died in 1886. So you’re saying that he (Chester A.) used his brother’s BC 15 years after he (Chester A.) was dead?Another scary trivia about Arthur: he took the oath of office twice just to make sure it was all legal and not give his political enemies ammunition against him. Sound familiar?

You are correct Keith, Sally like most other things she says made this claim up. It wasn’t even until around 1860 when a government started to use a standard for birth registrations. This was the UK that did this. It was around 1903 when the US got around to it.

Egharcsar: Hi majority will, twice in this thread you have mentioned justice day-oconnor. To be fair to those who read things on the Internet and believe them, could you clarify if her opinion stands as dicta or precedent. By the way, Leo posts this morning dianna cotter’s finding about Obama,s favorite law firm perkinscole using and citing case law from justia. Something to look into. This media that we share may not have legal weight to shepardize, but it sheppards nonetheless those who would be herd,rather than heard. I thin we can agree on the rhetoric at play

Well if you are citing Donofrio I suspect you don’t know the difference between dicta and precedent as clearly Leo doesn’t. No competent lawyer would ever think Minor is precedent for who is natural born as the entire discussion of citizenship was dicta. And to say that Minor says that children of aliens are not natural born is simply a lie. Only birthers would cite a case on the status of children of aliens when the court expressly stated it would not address the status of aliens.

It seems no matter how silly Donofrio’s claims are, the birther masses will lap up as such people seem incapable of critical thinking. Donofrio is claiming this web site, one of a multitude of sources for Supreme Court case law, wanted to hide the fact that later courts cited Minor when all such later cititations had nothing to do with natural born citizenship at all. Sorry, such is just plain stupid.

Egharcsar: Hi majority will, twice in this thread you have mentioned justice day-oconnor. To be fair to those who read things on the Internet and believe them, could you clarify if her opinion stands as dicta or precedent.

To be fair? You have read many unsubstantiated birther claims. How often do they admit error or fault? Or better yet, cite anonymous blogs as credible sources?

You know I was comparing Justice O’Connors statement to birthers finding credibility with Leo Donofrio.

Is it argumentum ad verecundiam?

The strength of O’Connor’s statement that the President is a natural born citizen depends upon two factors:
1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

Would Leo’s claims be considered dicta or precedent?

Do you consider Leo to be a legitimate expert? Is there a consensus among legal experts that Leo is a competent and credible legal authority?

P.S. Thanks for qualifying your rhetorical question as nonsense with an emoticon.

Majority Will: The strength of O’Connor’s statement that the President is a natural born citizen depends upon two factors:
1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

O’Connor’s statement is simply information as to how the modern-day Supreme Court views the question. Leo and his acolytes can cry like infants about what some Supreme Court in olden days might have thought (they are wrong on that as well) but modern-day law is made by modern-day judges. Today’s Supreme Court all attended Obama’s inauguration (yes I know some may have dozed), have treated his Solicitor General’s briefs the same way way they treated those from SGs in the past, have refused to even hear arguments in every single birther case, etc. So, it’s quite fanciful to pretend that they consider him to be anything other than the fully qualified lawful President.

Not to mention that an actual court, one not known for being out of the mainstream, did in fact review the Vattelist arguments in a case deirectly involvinng Obama’s eligibility. So I ask again for the 415th time, “If they have even the semblance of a case, why did the birther legal geniuses not appeal Ankeny to SCOTUS?”

Scientist: O’Connor’s statement is simply information as to how the modern-day Supreme Court views the question.

As borne out by the fact that even Clarence Thomas has no interest in hearing the birther cases.

Donofrio, Apuzzo, Corsi, Farah, et al. are grifters. As with all grifters, when they are faced with unpleasant facts they resort to misdirection in order to lure their victims (i.e., their PayPal patrons) back into the fold. They have to keep beating the drum, which is why one failed lawsuit is always followed up with another. They know that they must keep their followers believing that any day now Obama is going to be taken out of the White House in shackles.

I wonder if Sally Hill is out looking for the elusive civics textbook which says that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents?

It’s interesting to me that Ankeny, a pro-se plaintiff in Indiana, actually got further than any of the birther “attorneys” simply by filing at the proper time in the proper court and following the court’s rules, something none of the others, who supposedly went to law school (one wonders) have been able to accomplish. And, after losing, it seems he moved on. At least, there is no evidence that Mr Ankeny launched a web site accusing all the judges in Indiana of being corrupt and soliciting PayPal donations. I can actually have at least a grudging respect for someone who argues his case (even if it’s foolish), has his day in court and moves on. People who are still whining 3 years later are worthy only of contempt.

Scientist: I love the image of them playing 3-card monte on a street corner.It’s interesting to me that Ankeny, a pro-se plaintiff in Indiana, actually got further than any of the birther “attorneys” simply by filing at the proper time in the proper court and following the court’s rules, something none of the others, who supposedly went to law school (one wonders) have been able to accomplish. And, after losing, it seems he moved on. At least, there is no evidence that Mr Ankeny launched a web site accusing all the judges in Indiana of being corrupt and soliciting PayPal donations. I can actually have at least a grudging respect for someone who argues his case (even if it’s foolish), has his day in court and moves on. People who are still whining 3 years later are worthy only of contempt.

I wouldn’t give Ankeny much credit. His suit could have dismissed for a myriad of reasons including it was moot and that he produced no argument that the Governor had a duty to determine the eligiblity of candidates. For some reason the court decided to dismiss by addressing the Constitutional question probably because it was more interesting.

M will, thanks for the ps nod and clarification edification. You have of course picked up on the point. Even though a logical trap, an appeal to authority often works, as do the ad hominem attacks, when we live in materially dialectic world.
Also thanks for not poking me on my quick posting that only catches sheppards to Shepherds now. Wish I could scrub that.

This so-called precedent is not a precedent and can’t be since it did not resolve the issue. To try to use it as such is both evil and stupid. It should not take the court long to drive a stake through the heart of this Precedent Evil.

Well said! Another clever & enjoyable article & great use of pop culture references! As a Resident Evil fan, I caught the clever zombie allusions & Squirrel City play on words for Racoon City right away…but loved the additional “nuts” explanation for Squirrel City in the note!! I think it is great that you add those notes & footnotes at the end of your articles to both explain to those who might not be familiar with the references used as well as add additional context. Muchos Kudos yet again!

Keith: Paul Pieniezny: Sitting PresidentS? As far as I know, only Thomas Jefferson had French citizenship when in the White House. … but also Germany before 2000)

Eisenhower was German during his presidency.

He probably was no longer. At the time he was born, the village his forefather emigrated from was part of Prussia. Prussian law expressly took citizenship away from those who worked for a foreign (not German) government.

By joining the US army, Eisenhower almost certainly lost his German citizenship.

Scientist: That would depend on your status and your spouse’s there. Most countries would grant citiizenship if one parent had legal status there.

The problem is in the word “grant”. Many, if not most European countries now “grant” their citizenship” to those born in the country when they apply for it at the age of 18. Germany (a country which traditionally believed in jus sanguinis) “grants” German citizenship to all those born in Germany of at least one resident parent, but asks them to confirm at 23 that they want to be German AND have at least tried to renounce any other (non-EU) citizenship.

International law now holds that states have a duty to ensure that no child born on their soil is stateless. (One of the basic human rights of a child just born is the right to a nationality) So eg Belgian nationality law which gives NBC status only to those born in Belgium of at least one citizen parent and to those abroad of two citizen parents (Vattel would have liked that) expressly states that if the nationality status of the parents or/and the nationality laws of the parents’ countries or country would mean the child born in Belgium (or abroad of one Belgian parent) is stateless, it will receive Belgian NBC status anyway. (German law also has a few exceptions all over the place which basically say “if otherwise stateless, then German anyway”). So here is at least one instance where countries will look at the laws of other countries to take a very important decision.

At least, countries with pure jus soli (such as the US and Canada) do not have to bother about that one.

Talking about Canada, the official French translation of “natural born citizen” is “citoyen de naissance”. Try to find that one in The Law of Nations.

Paul Pieniezny: At least, countries with pure jus soli (such as the US and Canada) do not have to bother about that one.

I don’t think it is correct to call the US and Canada “pure jus soli” since both grant automatic citizenship to the children of their citizens born abroad. “Pure jus soli” would be what is practiced by Brazll and some other Latin American countries, which did not, until 2007, grant birth citizenship to those born outside their territory even if both parents were Brazilian (unless they are abroad on official government business).

Paul Pieniezny: Talking about Canada, the official French translation of “natural born citizen” is “citoyen de naissance”. Try to find that one in The Law of Nations.

Citoyen de naissance = citizen by birth = natural born citizen. Elementary. The term really has little practical importance, since Canada does not forbid naturalized citizens from being Prime Minister. Nor does Australia, which has one in office now. Both seem to be doing better than the US right now, so perhaps they are on to something.

“In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama went on a mission to Russia with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN). The newly-minted U.S. senator was invited to be part of a Russian fact-finding tour that inspected a nuclear weapons site in Perm, Siberia. The base Lugar and Obama visited was where mobile launch missiles were being destroyed under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (CTR), which also went by the name of the Nunn-Lugar program.

What happened next — after the inspections were over — was at the time reported by several foreign news sources but was never reported in the USA by the CMM. The Russians detained Obama and Lugar for three hours at the airport, demanding to examine both Obama’s and Lugar’s passports and search their plane. Some sources reported that the Russians accused Barack Obama of being a spy.

“In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama went on a mission to Russia with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN).Thenewly-minted U.S. senator was invited to be part of a Russian fact-finding tour that inspected a nuclear weapons site in Perm, Siberia.The base Lugar and Obama visited was where mobile launch missiles were being destroyed under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (CTR), which also went by the name of the Nunn-Lugar program.

What happened next — after the inspections were over — was at the time reported by several foreign news sources but was never reported in the USA by the CMM.The Russians detained Obama and Lugar for three hours at the airport, demanding to examine both Obama’s and Lugar’s passports and search their plane.Some sources reported that the Russians accused Barack Obama of being a spy.

Pure birther hogwash. The incident was reported in the Washington Post on 8/29/05.

G: Well said!Another clever & enjoyable article & great use of pop culture references!As a Resident Evil fan, I caught the clever zombie allusions & Squirrel City play on words for Racoon City right away…but loved the additional “nuts” explanation for Squirrel City in the note!!I think it is great that you add those notes & footnotes at the end of your articles to both explain to those who might not be familiar with the references used as well as add additional context.Muchos Kudos yet again!

Thank you!!! I am glad you liked it. I am going to do a Amicus Curiae brief for the Federal Court on this. I downloaded a sample one, I think I can really do a good one, and pretty short just a few pages, on something nobody else is thinking about right now.

Plus, something for people to think about here is this. The Liberty Legal Foundation is using Minor v. Happersett for a “precedent.” But, the Vattle Birthers like Leo Donofrio and others, like to claim Wong Kim Ark supports them by citing the Minor language.

Sooo, why aren’t they using the LATER case of Wong Kim Ark as precedent in their lawsuits??? Huh???

Majority Will: Sorry, Rickey, for making that look like a quote from you.

That’s okay. I knew it wasn’t aimed at me.

The people who spread these stories know that their birther followers never fact-check anything. And of course it always sounds more sinister if they claim that the mainstream media never reported it. It took me a couple of minutes to find the Washington Post story,.

As you pointed out, then they use the “some sources reported” to include a lie, which you know is a lie because they never provide a link to a primary source.

The point about holding them up was bureaucracy. The authorities at Perm Airport were using a safety manual that allowed no exceptions to flights abroad. So, the Americans, who wanted to fly on to the Ukraine, were given the chance between having the plane serached for bombs and weapons (which they refused, claiming diplomatic immunity) and flying to a real international airport around Moscow first (which they thought was ridiculous). In the end the Americans got a permission from the Russian government to fly abroad at their own risk – an authorization the bureaucrats at Perm had refused to give.

You can bet your birther copy of Vattel that Obama’s and Lugar’s passport were faxed to Moscow. The present Ambassador of Russia in the USA was a member of the Russian government at the time (secretary to the minister of Foreign Affairs, I seem to remember).

The Perm incident has been discussed here before. To sane people, it means that even the Russian government knows Obama was born in Honolulu. To crazy Russian Orly it means that Obama was NOT born in Hondulu (no misprint, that is how Orly wrote it recently) and that Russia is blackmailing him.

All you can do is give that woodchuck a tuna melt, a romantic shoe or a metal skull crusher. It’s crazy.”

I’m fairly fluent in Surrealism. Cain’s pitch is still off the mark. Why? It’s ballerinas, marzipan. Chunky squirrels won’t fly. You have to lick the butter slowly in a royal gypsy dance or don’t dance at all. Back it up. Just back it up.

Obsolete: Anti-Obama hogwash: “Some sources reported that the Russians accused Barack Obama of being a spy.”So Obama is spying on the Russians for the U.S., and the birthers have a problem with that?

According to the article, the Russians accused Obama of being a British spy (perhaps Sens Lugar and Hagel were accused of being American spies, it’s hard to tell from such a poorly written and researched piece of junk). Personally, I am disappointed that this isn’t true. I was enjoying visions of Barack driving along the French Riviera in an Aston martin with a gorgeous woman by his side, pulling into the casino at Monte Carlo and ordering a martini (shaken, not stirred) at the baccarat table. Although I guess bin Laden and al-Alawki were taken care of under his license to kill.

Scientist: I was enjoying visions of Barack driving along the French Riviera in an Aston martin with a gorgeous woman by his side, pulling into the casino at Monte Carlo and ordering a martini (shaken, not stirred) at the baccarat table.

Well, we know he visited the South of France when he was younger, so you may not be too far off the mark.

That certainly was a most excellent analysis! In addition to your Ganser Syndrome comparitive analysis, the linkages to both Anti-Social Personality & Narcissistic Disorders really seem spot on!

My favorite part:

In much the same way that 4 and 5 year old children believe dressing up in mommy and daddy’s clothing makes them appear adult-like, the person with this delusion attempts to subsume the very role of the lawyers and judges upon whom they heap so much derision. Like those same children, they only appear silly and foolish to others not inside their play group.

LOL! Yeah, birthers definitely require “magic thinking” for all their conclusions and their constant intentional deceptions are a clear practice of trying to invoke the Law of Similarity & Contagion, as if that will *poof* give them the reality they want instead of the reality we all live in.

“There’s no way for us, as militiamen, to save this country, to save Georgia, without doing something that’s highly illegal: murder,” Thomas said during a meeting in March, according to the affidavit. “… When it comes to saving the Constitution, that means some people gotta die.”

Majority Will: Who wants to bet these guys are birthers?“There’s no way for us, as militiamen, to save this country, to save Georgia, without doing something that’s highly illegal: murder,” Thomas said during a meeting in March, according to the affidavit. “… When it comes to saving the Constitution, that means some people gotta die.”Georgia militia plot | Affidavit outlines plans for killingshttp://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/georgia-militia-plot-affidavit-1214918.html

Thanks for link; I was most interested in a Fox news clip in which Herman Cain accused staff on the Rick Perry campaign for revealing information about the sexual harassment lawsuits brought against him in the ’90s. I hope people like Ann Coulter (a.k.a., “the heavy-duty tranny,” a.k.a., “the whited sepulcher”) will heed Mr. Cain, and stop blaming Democrats for actions, which at this stage in the election cycle, primarily benefit Cain’s Republican rivals.

Wow. I’ve taken tests like these many times over the years. This one put me much more economically to the left than ever before:

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82

I’ll chalk that up to the nature of the particular set of questions asked, which were more focused in this particular test on the impact of multi-national corporations as opposed to tax policy issues. I do feel that a huge amount of the current problem is due to the too-big to fail types, Wall Street greed, outsourcing and special interest lobbyists, think-tanks and trust fund babies, such as the Koch brothers…so with so many of the economic questions being focused on those concerns that I’m currently worried or angry about, I can see why it drove my numbers a good 5 points or so to the left of where they’ve typically been.

According to the chart of famous leaders, that puts my current results in line with Nelson Mandela, so that’s an honorable place to be.

The eyeball guestimate puts me somewhere on the line connecting Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I can live with that.

I was uncomfortable with the wording of some of the questions, they seemed inordinately focused on extreme view points, but I suppose that someone like Maggie Thatcher wouldn’t have read the question with the same biases I have. And of course there are the questions that force you to think about if you ‘strongly’ agree/ disagree or only just agree/disagree.

The one that stands out as weird to me was the one about the mother with a career. I find that kind of one sided question just silly, and don’t understand how anyone can disagree with the proposition. Of course the prime focus of a mother should be to be a homemaker, and by the same token the prime focus of a father should be to be a homemaker. In both cases, working may well be part of what it takes to make the home.

While I understand that working mothers are a lightening rod issue for many, that really isn’t the question they asked. I seems to me that this question was worded so that there could be only one answer no matter where you might fall on the left/right up/down scale.

Has anybody here ever heard of Steubenite Birthers??? They don’t show up on google except for The Birther Think Tank which did a Internet Article on them, but there is a new website. I am not sure if this is for real, or is a spoof thingy. I am kind of thinking “spoof”, but the guy, Patric’ has real sources for it:

Head Researcher: Has anybody here ever heard of Steubenite Birthers??? They don’t show up on google except for The Birther Think Tank which did a Internet Article on them, but there is a new website. I am not sure if this is for real, or is a spoof thingy. I am kind of thinking “spoof”, but the guy, Patric’ has real sources for it:

Read it carefully Squeek. He is arguing to get rid of the natural born citizen nonsense. I agree 100%. It had little point in the 18th century and none today. It defies logic, common sense and elementary notions of equality and human rights. I have yet to hear anyone defend it other with an argument other than “the founders said so”. Are grown people in 2011 children who do things “because Mommy and Daddy said so”?

Scientist: Read it carefully Squeek.He is arguing to get rid of the natural born citizen nonsense.I agree 100%. It had little point in the 18th century and none today.It defies logic, common sense and elementary notions of equality and human rights.I have yet to hear anyone defend it other with an argument other than “the founders said so”.Are grown people in 2011 children who do things “because Mommy and Daddysaid so”?

Whew! I am glad he was for real because I was afraid I was being a Gull. E. Bull, again. I went ahead and did a Internet Article because it was interesting, and I got to use a funny title, but I thought he was maybe just one of you Obots teasing me.

Are you going to take the Political Compass test that Majority Will posted a link to at 12:51pm? It was quite interesting and everyone’s been sharing their results (just cut/paste here). I was hoping you’d participate and share as well. Thanks.

Head Researcher: Whew! I am glad he was for real because I was afraid I was being a Gull. E. Bull, again. I went ahead and did a Internet Article because it was interesting, and I got to use a funny title, but I thought he was maybe just one of you Obots teasing me. The Head Researcher

Here’s a story about some scary Mooslims. Hide under your bed. Oh, wait. You can’t hide under your bed. There’s already a communist there.

NYC’s Oldest Bialy Shop Saved by Two Muslims

Here’s a delicious template for peace in the Middle East: Coney Island Bialys and Bagels — at 91, the oldest bialy shop in New York City — was on the brink of shutting down after the founder’s grandson had called it quits. But the bialys will live on, thanks to two Muslim businessmen…

As reported by the Huffington Post, Elizabeth Warren, Democratic candidate for Senate, was heckled by a Tea Party enthusiast during a public meeting at a VFW in Brockton, MA. The heckler, who said he was unemployed, was incensed by Warren’s support for Occupy Wall Street protests. According to HuffPo, before leaving the hall, he called Warren a “socialist whore” and referred to President Obama as foreign born.

Maybe we need a new word to describe a tea-bagger who’s also a birther . . . would he be a teether? A birth-bagger?

I have a question concerning how this site appears when I do a Google search for “Obama Conspiracy Theories,” or some variation on that theme.

When the search results come in, obamaconspiracy.org appears at the top of the results page. However, the snippet that describes the content of this site suggests that the good Dr. C. is hawking boner pills. It reads:

Arthur:
I have a question concerning how this site appearswhen I do a Google search for “Obama Conspiracy Theories,” or some variation on that theme.

When the search results come in, obamaconspiracy.org appears at the top of the results page. However, the snippet that describes the content of this site suggests that the good Dr. C. is hawking boner pills. It reads:

Arthur:
I have a question concerning how this site appearswhen I do a Google search for “Obama Conspiracy Theories,” or some variation on that theme.

When the search results come in, obamaconspiracy.org appears at the top of the results page. However, the snippet that describes the content of this site suggests that the good Dr. C. is hawking boner pills. It reads:

This snippet has been appearing for months. Could someone explain why this occurs?

If I recall, Google puts a snippet ad at the top on some older browsers. The ones who hawk the pills have likely hidden in keywords to get better placement (not sure how that works). The search engine may also be noticing at first “Obama Condoms” and triggering the ad. And yes, there is a site for Obama Condoms. It is actually rather humorous.

Around here, I must be the hardline conservative as I was at -3 on both Eco and Soc. I bet it would be different if I took it again. I am not consistent.

Welcome

Obama Conspiracy Theories since 2008 has been your des­tination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Having an argu­ment with your buddies at the office? You're in the right place. Use the Search box below or check out our featured articles. If you don't agree with what you see, feel free to add your thoughts to the over 250,000 comments others have left. To leave a comment not on the current articles, visit the Open Thread.

Quote of the day

Conspiracies

Conspiracies

Sometimes people leave comments designed to offend or outrage the reader, and invoke a firestorm of protest in response. These are the Internet trolls. Replying to them is feeding them and they will come back for more. Refusing to play their game encourages them to go away.